[metaparse] Review Manager

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[metaparse] Review Manager

Christophe Henry-3
Dear Review Wizards,

I would like to volunteer to be Review Manager for the metaparse library, in
agreement with Abel.
We would like to suggest May 25 to June 07 for the review.
If there are no objections, please sign me up.

Regards,
Christophe



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Abel Sinkovics
On 2015-03-16 07:54, Christophe Henry wrote:
> I would like to volunteer to be Review Manager for the metaparse
> library, in agreement with Abel.
> We would like to suggest May 25 to June 07 for the review.
> If there are no objections, please sign me up.
Thank you Christophe.

I'd like to ask the maintainer of the Review Schedule webpage to update
the Documentation and Source links of Metaparse:
- Source: https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs
- Documentation: http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metaparse/

Thanks,
   Ábel


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Robert Ramey
In reply to this post by Christophe Henry-3
This is about a week after C++Now 2015.  I suppose that would work.

Personally, I would like to see at least some reviews in the review pages of the incubator before we even start a review. The main purpose of the review queue in the incubator is to get reviews from a wider source and not limit the reviewers to a specific two week period.  This library touches on a very narrow area where only the geekiest of the geekiest are in a position to understand and review it.  This makes efforts to get more reviews even more important.

I know it's off topic, but I'd like to see that a library have at least some number N of reviews on the incubator before we even schedule a review.  I'm thinking of N ~ 5 ?

Robert Ramey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Christophe Henry-2

Hi Robert,

>Personally, I would like to see at least some reviews in the review pages
>of
>the incubator before we even start a review. The main purpose of the review
>queue in the incubator is to get reviews from a wider source and not limit
>the reviewers to a specific two week period.  This library touches on a
>very
>narrow area where only the geekiest of the geekiest are in a position to
>understand and review it.  This makes efforts to get more reviews even more
>important.

I hope it's not only for the geekiest.

>I know it's off topic, but I'd like to see that a library have at least
>some
>number N of reviews on the incubator before we even schedule a review.  I'm
>thinking of N ~ 5 ?
>
>Robert Ramey

Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
enough?
It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the incubator as a
way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?

Regards,
Christophe


--
View this message in context:
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/metaparse-Review-Manager-tp4673218p4673257.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Steven Watanabe-4
AMDG

On 03/17/2015 10:24 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

>
>> I know it's off topic, but I'd like to see that a library have at
>> least some
>> number N of reviews on the incubator before we even schedule a
>> review.  I'm
>> thinking of N ~ 5 ?
>>
>
> Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
> enough?
> It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the incubator
> as a way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?
>

+1

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Ron Garcia
In reply to this post by Christophe Henry-3
Hello Christophe,

Thank you for volunteering to manage this review and suggesting review dates.  I will add you to the review schedule.

Best,
Ron

On 2015-03-15, at 11:54 PM, Christophe Henry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Review Wizards,
>
> I would like to volunteer to be Review Manager for the metaparse library, in agreement with Abel.
> We would like to suggest May 25 to June 07 for the review.
> If there are no objections, please sign me up.
>
> Regards,
> Christophe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Ron Garcia
In reply to this post by Abel Sinkovics
Hello Abel,

Thank you for the updates.  I will update the review schedule.

Best,
Ron

On 2015-03-16, at 1:15 PM, Abel Sinkovics <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2015-03-16 07:54, Christophe Henry wrote:
>> I would like to volunteer to be Review Manager for the metaparse library, in agreement with Abel.
>> We would like to suggest May 25 to June 07 for the review.
>> If there are no objections, please sign me up.
> Thank you Christophe.
>
> I'd like to ask the maintainer of the Review Schedule webpage to update the Documentation and Source links of Metaparse:
> - Source: https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs
> - Documentation: http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metaparse/
>
> Thanks,
>  Ábel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Robert Ramey
In reply to this post by Christophe Henry-2
christophe.j.henry wrote
Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
enough? It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the incubator as a
way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?
OK - let me state it another way.

I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews.  We could discuss what "small" is.  I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is not "small".   FWIW my pick would be 5.  

If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources.

If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.

if the review period falls at an inconvenient time for some key reviewers and they can't make a review in that time frame we've also lost good opportunity to maximize the effectiveness of the review.

Now look at the incubator NOT as a pre-requisite but rather as  way to minimize the possibility of a library getting rejected due to not getting enough serious reviews. Or maximizing the number of quality reviews. So I would encourage the libraries advocates to post their reviews on the incubator in advance of the formal review date.  That's all I want to do ... (for now).  I'll leave open the question of whether it's an effective usage of scarce resources to do a formal review if there are no existing reviews in he incubator.
Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
enough?
YES - it needs to be HIGHER!!!  AND C++ needs MORE libraries.

I'm aware that these two goals seem to conflict - that is why we need to evolve our procedures.

As a user of boost - it seems that many, many, many times I want to look at a library and find way too much effort is required to understand and use the library.  A big, recurring problem is poor documentation.  Library authors consider it an afterthought rather than an integral part of the library.  Another big recurring problem is library interface design.  This results in a number of libraries where the authors state that they can't specify concepts because ....  well I don't know.  Usually it comes down to the fact that the library interface isn't really designed - it seems to just sort of "happen".

Declining to raise our standards is a one way ticket to irrelevance.

Robert Ramey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Edward Diener-3
On 3/18/2015 3:40 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:

> christophe.j.henry wrote
>> Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
>> enough? It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the
>> incubator as a
>> way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?
>
> OK - let me state it another way.
>
> I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby
> libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews.  We could
> discuss what "small" is.  I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is
> not "small".   FWIW my pick would be 5.
>
> If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the
> review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources.
>
> If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
> forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
> significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.
>
> if the review period falls at an inconvenient time for some key reviewers
> and they can't make a review in that time frame we've also lost good
> opportunity to maximize the effectiveness of the review.
>
> Now look at the incubator NOT as a pre-requisite but rather as  way to
> minimize the possibility of a library getting rejected due to not getting
> enough serious reviews. Or maximizing the number of quality reviews. So I
> would encourage the libraries advocates to post their reviews on the
> incubator in advance of the formal review date.  That's all I want to do ...
> (for now).  I'll leave open the question of whether it's an effective usage
> of scarce resources to do a formal review if there are no existing reviews
> in he incubator.
>
>> Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high
>> enough?
>
> YES - it needs to be HIGHER!!!  AND C++ needs MORE libraries.
>
> I'm aware that these two goals seem to conflict - that is why we need to
> evolve our procedures.
>
> As a user of boost - it seems that many, many, many times I want to look at
> a library and find way too much effort is required to understand and use the
> library.  A big, recurring problem is poor documentation.  Library authors
> consider it an afterthought rather than an integral part of the library.
> Another big recurring problem is library interface design.  This results in
> a number of libraries where the authors state that they can't specify
> concepts because ....  well I don't know.  Usually it comes down to the fact
> that the library interface isn't really designed - it seems to just sort of
> "happen".
>
> Declining to raise our standards is a one way ticket to irrelevance.

The problem is that almost no one is using the incubator to show
interest in a Boost library which may be on the review schedule. Unless
a review is scheduled, which brings the attention of the library to
others who may be interested in it, there is little personal interest
from developers or users to look at some library. Once a review is
scheduled and an announcement is made that library X will be reviewed
shortly programmers become interested in that library.

I agree there are cases where interest in a possible library occurs but
that is almost always because it is mentioned in this mailing list and
talked about by other developers or end-users. Hana is a recent case
like that. But unfortunately merely adding a library to the incubator is
not getting anybody interested in it. This is not a criticism of your
work setting up the incubator but it is more about the fact that
discussions on the Boost mailing lists pique people's interest much more
than just adding a library to the incubator.

So unless there is some fairly coninuous way of getting information
about libraries on the incubator into the Boost mailing lists I do not
see that requiring incubator interest in a library in order for that
library to be reviewed is a viable path to go.

I do agree with you completely that poor or haphazard attention to
documentation, as in "I've developed library X which I might be
interested to submit as a Boost library but as present there is no or
little documentation, but what do you think about it since the source is
at http:xxx and it is about Y and Z" does not personally interest me in
any library. I am with you that without basic documentation a library
could be the most brilliant thing since the theory of relativity and I
would still have no interest in it. But that is separate from the issue
of requirements of whether a library should be reviewed or not.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Robert Ramey
Edward Diener-3 wrote
The problem is that ... become interested in that library.

I agree there are cases where interest in a possible library occurs but
that ...
I agree with all this - it's exactly what I'm trying to change.
So unless there is some fairly coninuous way of getting information
about libraries on the incubator into the Boost mailing lists I do not
see that requiring incubator interest in a library in order for that
library to be reviewed is a viable path to go.
well, right now incubator interest is the only way we have of gaging
if there's enough interest in a library to justify reviewing it.  The
review process has been a problem for years.  I'm trying to make
it better - albeit with limited success.

Note that my target audience for the incubator is not so much the
boost developer community but the C++ community at large.  I'm
hoping that "the rest of us" will find code there that solves problems
lot's of people have.  And that this code will include commentary
from other users, good documentation (ideally annoyed by other
users), access to test results, reviews and commentary, and
access to repo history.  I also want to make it easier for the wider
community to contribute.  It's great to have 4 meta programming
libraries around - but isn't there room for a really well crafted
class for "money".  

I do agree with you completely that poor or haphazard attention to
documentation ...

But that is separate from the issue
of requirements of whether a library should be reviewed or not.
Correct - it's an orthogonal issue.  But

Hmmm - maybe we can just say that the library is approved subject
to the documentation meeting certain standards.  But I don't think
that's working.  I want to see a change in the way library programmers
think about coding, documentation, concepts, library design and
program correctness.  These are not new ideas - I just want them
to be taken more seriously.  I think Boost only has a future if they are.

I realize that that I'm on a personal quest here. I much appreciate
the willingness of the boost community to indulge me here.

Robert Ramey.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Christophe Henry-2
In reply to this post by Robert Ramey
Hi,

>I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby
>libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews.  We could
>discuss what "small" is.  I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is
>not "small".   FWIW my pick would be 5.
>
>If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the
>review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources.

Thanks for worrying for my time ;-)
I agree that my time is a scarce resource. So if I'm willing to risk it, and
risk reviewer time too, it's because I think the library has merit and
deserves a closer look.
I also waited for requesting a review until Abel writes some good
documentation and tutorial, which he did by now. Community, please have a
look at it, I hope you will like what you see.
The "Getting Started" part is really well done, and with the Online Demo,
Abel went to great lengths to make us easy to try the library out.
I have seldom seen a library come to review with such a good documentation.


>If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
>forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
>significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.

I thought this was the point of having to find a review manager and organize
a review. There is always a risk that the library fails to pass the review.
Otherwise, why have one?

>well, right now incubator interest is the only way we have of gaging
>if there's enough interest in a library to justify reviewing it.  The
>review process has been a problem for years.  I'm trying to make
>it better - albeit with limited success.

>Note that my target audience for the incubator is not so much the
>boost developer community but the C++ community at large.  I'm
>hoping that "the rest of us" will find code there that solves problems
>lot's of people have.  And that this code will include commentary
>from other users, good documentation (ideally annoyed by other
>users), access to test results, reviews and commentary, and
>access to repo history.  I also want to make it easier for the wider
>community to contribute.  It's great to have 4 meta programming
>libraries around - but isn't there room for a really well crafted
>class for "money".

I can only praise your efforts and it is one more tool to get quality
libraries in Boost. But the "standard" one works sometimes too. We can have
both.
The bar is usually so high to find a review manager, if you find one,
chances are that there is interest. Sure, maybe only from a few "geeks", but
these geeks are usually the ones who use these tools to make new libraries.

>I realize that that I'm on a personal quest here. I much appreciate
>the willingness of the boost community to indulge me here.

I personally do it happily and appreciate your commitment to the community.

Regards,
Christophe




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Robert Ramey
christophe.j.henry wrote
>If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
>forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
>significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.

I thought this was the point of having to find a review manager and organize
a review. There is always a risk that the library fails to pass the review.
Otherwise, why have one?
Of course, but why pass up the opportunity to get some advance feedback?
Such feedback will make the library less likely to fail.  It's not either/or
it's about making the review process easier and more effective.
I can only praise your efforts and it is one more tool to get quality
libraries in Boost. But the "standard" one works sometimes too. We can have
both. The bar is usually so high to find a review manager, if you find one,
chances are that there is interest. Sure, maybe only from a few "geeks", but
these geeks are usually the ones who use these tools to make new libraries.
The review process DOES work.  I'm a huge fan of it.  But we've had concerns
for many years that it's hard to find review managers and that there aren't enough
reviews. And the review process takes a lot of work.  Imagine how much easier
the the review process would be if there were already 5 reviews posted?
How much easier would be be to get a review manager?  As a thought
experiment, consider what would happen if we already had 5 reviews.
a) all reviews are wildly positive - review management is pretty simple
b) all reviews are strongly negative - the review process would end there
c) reviews are mixed - the most common case.  The library author would
be strongly motivated to address the complaints as soon as possible.
The final review would more likely to move toward a) above.  (BTW, I wonder if the
improvement in documentation you refer to above is motivated by some
feed back to the author).

So you see, I'm not proposing an alternative to the review process.  I'm
trying to address the things which have made it less effective in the past
without in anyway diminishing it's value - or even altering the prodedure
itself.  I think I found a good improvement with no downsides.

So, I would encourage anyone who expects to participate in this review
to post their review on the incubator at their earliest convenience.  You'll
have it done already when the review actually comes up, and you'll give
the author the option to act on your feedback earlier and maximize his
chances of getting his library accepted.

Robert Ramey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Nevin Liber
On 19 March 2015 at 14:05, Robert Ramey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> christophe.j.henry wrote
> >>If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
> >>forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
> >>significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.
> >
> > I thought this was the point of having to find a review manager and
> > organize
> > a review. There is always a risk that the library fails to pass the
> > review.
> > Otherwise, why have one?
>
> Of course, but why pass up the opportunity to get some advance feedback?
>

Is there a reasonable assurance that he'll get it, or is it just adding
latency to the process?

Of the twenty-two libraries listed, there are a whopping three reviews, two
of which are a review of your own library, and one of those is by you where
you recommend that we don't accept it into Boost.  Not exactly good odds...

The incubator is an experiment.  It may succeed, or it may fail.  If
someone wishes to tie their review to it, that's fine.  If they don't wish
to, that is fine too.  We know that you want the incubator to succeed, but
it is unfair to expect anyone to hold up a review of their library because
of it.
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:[hidden email]>  (847) 691-1404

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metaparse] Review Manager

Robert Ramey
Nevin Liber wrote
Is there a reasonable assurance that he'll get it,
Well I got some - safe numerics review - and I found it extremely useful.
or is it just adding latency to the process?
lol - how does posting a review in advvance add latency to the process?
It doesn't change the review date.
Of the twenty-two libraries listed, there are a whopping three reviews, two
of which are a review of your own library, and one of those is by you where
you recommend that we don't accept it into Boost.  Not exactly good odds...
My recollection is a whopping 2 reviews.  One was just a test of the system.

Of course this is not an argument that posting an advance review is a bad
idea.  What harm can come from it?
The incubator is an experiment.  It may succeed, or it may fail.  If
someone wishes to tie their review to it, that's fine.  If they don't wish
to, that is fine too.  
of course
We know that you want the incubator to succeed, but
it is unfair to expect anyone to hold up a review of their library because
of it.
Perhaps some future review wizard might want to do such a thing, but
so far certainly no one has suggested doing this it for this or any other
library in the queue.

Robert Ramey