Re: [boost] GIL - Generic Image Library Review - Begins
from Andy Little
Are the GIL Authors interested interested in defending their library against my criticisms or do they expect it to get into boost by default? If it does get in to Boost without any defence whatsoever, then it will confirm some suspicions (I currently think are unfounded) I have about Boost.
Thats some comment, I'd like to know more about what your suspicions are? As far as GIL the review, today is the first day of the review so give the authors a break. Tom Brinkman
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote in message news:30f04db60610051851x13a53e92s8c3ec296a4ec8689@mail.gmail.com...
from Andy Little
Are the GIL Authors interested interested in defending their library against my criticisms or do they expect it to get into boost by default? If it does get in to Boost without any defence whatsoever, then it will confirm some suspicions (I currently think are unfounded) I have about Boost.
Thats some comment, I'd like to know more about what your suspicions are?
The main one is that the deal is already sealed for this library. I hope that is wrong as I said.
As far as GIL the review, today is the first day of the review so give the authors a break.
Well, my original post has been around for three days or more, which AFAICS is adequate time to prepare a response. It seemed to me like the GIL authors had just decided to ignore my comments. And that struck me as a little weird, unless... regards Andy Little
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote in message news:30f04db60610051851x13a53e92s8c3ec296a4ec8689@mail.gmail.com...
from Andy Little
Are the GIL Authors interested interested in defending their library against my criticisms or do they expect it to get into boost by default? If it does get in to Boost without any defence whatsoever, then it will confirm some suspicions (I currently think are unfounded) I have about Boost. Thats some comment, I'd like to know more about what your suspicions are?
The main one is that the deal is already sealed for this library.
What deal? How do you imagine it might've been sealed?
I hope that is wrong as I said.
Is there any way the library could now be accepted without confirming your suspicions?
As far as GIL the review, today is the first day of the review so give the authors a break.
Well, my original post has been around for three days or more, which AFAICS is adequate time to prepare a response.
You mean you posted it before the review?
It seemed to me like the GIL authors had just decided to ignore my comments.
I think that was a demonstrably premature conclusion. I have to say, Andy, that while I wasn't particularly happy about the feeding frenzy of critical responses to your post, I understand why it happened. To vaguely allude to suspicions about boost, and then imply that the Boost community operates by "sealing deals" outside the review process is an attack on the integrity of that process, which is at the very foundation of Boost. It's no wonder many Boosters took that personally. Furthermore, the way you did it, offering yourself "plausible deniability" with the remark about your suspicions being unfounded, is the sort of thing that undermines the atmosphere of trust and collegiality many of us have worked hard to create. It's like putting question marks in newspaper headlines, e.g.: DOES ANDY LITTLE SMOKE CRACK? Dateline London: Unidentified sources in Downing Street claim that someone in the Boost developer community is smoking crack on the back steps. Could it be Andy Little? If you think something is wrong here, just come out and say it, and take responsibility for your standing behind your claim. Otherwise, if you want to nurse your suspicions, that's your business, but please keep them to yourself. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Since this is already blown out of proportion, I feel obliged to share my thoughts. Andy, now that you brought it up, I can totally understand why you (or anyone else) might get upset if his or her post gets ignored. I did not mean to ignore your post. I did not reply for three reasons - one, I wasn't sure you were expecting my reply since your post was phrased as an opinion, not as a question to me. Two, I wanted to collect other opinions and address them at once, and three, something came up and I was really busy before the review. If in the future you feel that I have not adequately and timely posted an answer to your question, feel free to ping me via email. This applies to all reviewers. Finally, I encourage constructive criticism, because that leads to ideas that improve the library. Lubomir
participants (4)
-
Andy Little -
David Abrahams -
Lubomir Bourdev -
Tom Brinkman