Hi, It's been more than a year since a completed the block_ptr and it seems as if more recent library are being reviewed first. This would suggest the FIFO of the schedule is not followed. I was just wondering since at the same time the reviewing of block_ptr is cost / beneficial. Regards, -Phil Author of: http://www.fornux.com/ http://www.finitetheory.com/
Did you found a review manager? The review schedule says you don't. My understanding is that no review can be scheduled without one and that is the major problem to solve to get a review (if your library is ready). Joel Lamotte
No I don't have a review manager but I would assume there is an army behind pointer related stuff. I just want to point out that it uses an allocator that has a linear complexity, so this is the only optimization left. But the pointer itself is more than ready. The complexity is constant and is deterministic thus all objects on the heap are guaranteed to be deleted when the program exists. -Phil On 7/29/2012 2:13 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
Did you found a review manager? The review schedule says you don't. My understanding is that no review can be scheduled without one and that is the major problem to solve to get a review (if your library is ready).
Joel Lamotte
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
block_ptr can be used in much more complex environment than shared_ptr and I personally want to use it in neural networks. On 7/29/2012 2:13 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
Did you found a review manager? The review schedule says you don't. My understanding is that no review can be scheduled without one and that is the major problem to solve to get a review (if your library is ready).
Joel Lamotte
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Phil Bouchard wrote:
It's been more than a year since a completed the block_ptr and it seems as if more recent library are being reviewed first. This would suggest the FIFO of the schedule is not followed.
We often refer to the review "queue", but that is using the vernacular rather than the computer science meaning of that word. It is not a FIFO. The order in which reviews are conducted is dependent upon many factors, but a library will not be scheduled for review without a review manager. I just looked at http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html and http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html and don't see any mention of who finds the review manager, so it's understandable that you misunderstood. It is your responsibility to secure a review manager. One is not assigned. Once you've found someone, you post a message to the Review Wizards asking them to accept your review manager. If accepted, your review manager and you must then agree on some dates for your review -- you'll want to avoid conflicts with currently scheduled reviews -- and submit them to the Review Wizards who will then schedule your review.
I was just wondering since at the same time the reviewing of block_ptr is cost / beneficial.
I can't parse that statement. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer using std::disclaimer; Dev Tools & Components Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com ________________________________ IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On 7/30/2012 2:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:
It's been more than a year since a completed the block_ptr and it seems as if more recent library are being reviewed first. This would suggest the FIFO of the schedule is not followed.
We often refer to the review "queue", but that is using the vernacular rather than the computer science meaning of that word. It is not a FIFO. The order in which reviews are conducted is dependent upon many factors, but a library will not be scheduled for review without a review manager.
I just looked at http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html and http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html and don't see any mention of who finds the review manager, so it's understandable that you misunderstood. It is your responsibility to secure a review manager. One is not assigned. Once you've found someone, you post a message to the Review Wizards asking them to accept your review manager. If accepted, your review manager and you must then agree on some dates for your review -- you'll want to avoid conflicts with currently scheduled reviews -- and submit them to the Review Wizards who will then schedule your review.
Your explanation is appreciated. I thought I read somewhere it was a first come first served basis so I apologize for the misunderstanding. If there is any potential review manager reading this then I can say that it features: - Constant complexity - Deterministic (predictable) We could also: - Optimize the allocator it uses - We could detect cyclic pointers within the same set explicitly when the program is on idle (for example) if memory is really needed but this is "non a prioritate". Once again it can be used for any problems such as feedback neural networks and all heap allocations are guaranteed to be deleted on the termination of the program. -Phil
On 7/30/12, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
I just looked at http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html and http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html and don't see any mention of who finds the review manager, so it's understandable that you misunderstood. It is your responsibility to secure a review manager. One is not assigned. Once you've found someone, you post a message to the Review Wizards asking them to accept your review manager. If accepted, your review manager and you must then agree on some dates for your review -- you'll want to avoid conflicts with currently scheduled reviews -- and submit them to the Review
On the page, http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html, under the REVIEW WIZARD heading, it says, The Review Wizard coordinates the formal review schedule: - Maintains a list of review manager volunteers, in the form of a queue, so that volunteers who least recently managed reviews become the prime candidates for upcoming reviews. - When a formal review is requested for a library: - Assign a review manager and suggests a schedule, after checking (via private email) availability of the volunteers at the top of review manager queue. - Finalize the schedule, once the review manager verifies the library is actually ready for review. - Resolve schedule slips or other issues with review managers and submitters. I know that volunteer review managers put themselves forward for certain libraries. Failing that I was expecting a review manager to be assigned, unless of course the volunteer review manager list is empty. Regards Brian
Brian Smith wrote:
On 7/30/12, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
I just looked at http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html and http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html and don't see any mention of who finds the review manager, so it's understandable that you misunderstood.
On the page, http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html, under the REVIEW WIZARD heading, it says,
The Review Wizard coordinates the formal review schedule:
- Maintains a list of review manager volunteers, in the form of a queue, so that volunteers who least recently managed reviews become the prime candidates for upcoming reviews. - When a formal review is requested for a library: - Assign a review manager and suggests a schedule, after checking (via private email) availability of the volunteers at the top of review manager queue. [snip] I know that volunteer review managers put themselves forward for certain libraries. Failing that I was expecting a review manager to be assigned, unless of course the volunteer review manager list is empty.
Hah! I skipped right over that section because I wasn't expecting anything germane to appear there! (Selection bias at work!) I've not observed the Review Managers assigning reviewers, but perhaps they do. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer using std::disclaimer; Dev Tools & Components Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com ________________________________ IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
participants (4)
-
Brian Smith -
Klaim - Joël Lamotte -
Phil Bouchard -
Stewart, Robert