Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] needs a mini-review

On 10/8/20 9:28 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:

czw., 8 paź 2020 o 19:18 Robert Ramey via Boost napisał(a):

...

As author of two boost libraries, I can offer a little perspective.

My second offering is the safe numerics library. It had some loose ends but was considered sufficiently implemented to accept. And so it was. Apparently, it was not that interesting for enough people to craft objections to. WHat happened next?

You guessed it. cleaning up the "loose ends", unraveled the whole library implementation. Even worse, it impacted that type requirements (concepts) which the library specified. It was almost like starting from scratch again. About the only thing left unscathed was the documentation. When I got it back together, I merged into boost development branch. .... and the it is. No one objected to this. In fact, no one even noticed. Did I do the right thing? Should I have asked for another review? You decide. I'm wondering if it got accepted in large part due the documentation. As usual, I don't have point here - just like to keep the pot boiling.

The review result of Safe Numerics library was that it is conditionally accepted: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2017/03/233511.php

My understanding of the process is that as the next steps: 1. The author applies the indicated conditions and reports readiness for a mini-review. 2. A mini-review is scheduled. Its purpose is to determine if the conditions have been satisfied 3. If the review passes, the author has green light to release their library as part of Boost libraries.

Of course this is the question at hand right now. If there are conditions, how should the be enforced? In many/most cases the conditions are pretty simple and straight forward so one has confidence that the author will simply make the updates and check in the library. I believe that this is the most common case. But sometimes, even though the conditions might seem straight forward, implementing them might end up being a lot more work than first meets the eye. In the case of safe numerics, I did manage (in my personal estimation) to implement all the stated conditions, but the effort required to do so was far beyond what I had anticipated. I also ended up refining ideas which were actually incorrect but never detected/noted in the review. I fixed that stuff also. So to my mind, the system worked well and as intended. a) I made the prototype library including documentation and carefully specified API b) It got reviewed c) It got accepted subject to some conditions d) I re-implemented it to fulfill all the conditions, fix discovered mistakes, fill in missing pieces. f) checked it in. The "missing step" would be e) - get a mini-review. Honestly this just never occurred to me. I had included all the conditions as issues on github and documented my changes there so I'm pretty confident that I addressed them all. I probably should have asked you to verify/certify that the conditions were met. But it didn't occur to me. In short, I'm arguing that a "mini-review" is generally not necessary and I don't think it's documented as as a step in the boost "process".

I read your message as saying that safe_numerics is ready for a mini-review. Is that correct?

In this particular case, I'd be happy to respond to anyone who wants to subject the current version of the safe numerics library to a mini-review. In general, I love talking about my stuff.

Regards, &rzej;

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost