6 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Tarik Moussa	24782e89cb	ci+hub: durable reviewer hub via in-repo HTML + perf-CI matrix on Linux ... Two additions that close out the reviewer-prep work cleanly: 1. doc/reviewer/hub.html + publish-workflow integration ────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Move the hand-curated reviewer hub from the codeberg `pages` branch (where it lived as an opaque snapshot) into the repo as `doc/reviewer/hub.html`. `.gitea/workflows/doxygen-pages.yml` gains a conditional `if [ -f doc/reviewer/hub.html ]; then …` step that installs it as the publish `index.html` and demotes the auto-generated Doxygen index to `/doxygen.html`. Effect: merging any of the open PRs into main will trigger the workflow, which republishes BOTH the Doxygen + the reviewer hub together. The reviewer URL stays live across merges with zero manual intervention. Source-controlled benefits: * hub edits go through normal PRs, not orphan-branch force-pushes * old hub versions live in git history * the in-repo links now target `branch/main/…` instead of the transient `preview/reviewer-snapshot-vN/…` paths 2. .gitea/workflows/perf-compile-time.yml — Linux CI bench ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────── New workflow runs on every push to main that touches the build system or public headers. Five-step matrix measures and reports: Run 1 cold baseline (no PCH, no Unity, no ccache) Run 2 + PCH only Run 3 + PCH + Unity (current default) Run 4 + FAST_TEST_BUILD=ON (-O0 -g — Linux's expected ~40 % win) Run 5 + ccache warm rerun (expected ≥ 90 % cache hit) Validates the Apple-M1 predictions in doc/architecture/compile-time.md against the Linux + g++ runner where Backend dominates more and the Apple-clang+PCH friction that defeats ccache locally does not apply. Job is data-collection only; never blocks a merge. doc updates: * doc/architecture/compile-time.md — new "Cross-platform perf bench" section linking to the workflow + the table of macOS-vs-Linux expected deltas. * doc/reviewer/README.md — new "Hub-Page durability" subsection explaining how the hub survives merges. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-26 09:11:34 +02:00
Tarik Moussa	6a712e623b	docs(reviewer): baustein D — close Java-scan + lit-integration gaps ... Earlier baustein B (`07c653c`) added a 6-row Research-Alignments table + a "what's new" banner, but only surfaced ~75 % of what the four Java-scan + literature-integration commits (`f854f0e`, `979f30c`, `e8a118f`, `8daee1b`) had introduced. This commit closes the gaps identified in the lückenprüfung: Research-Alignments table grows from 6 → 10 rows ───────────────────────────────────────────────── * +quasi-isothermic maps (Phase 10e, Java port — 6 classes incl. discrete Beltrami-field solver, Lawson correspondence ~800 lines) * +higher-genus + hyperelliptic surfaces (Phase 10b — `HyperellipticUtility` + Bobenko–Bücking 2009) * +Möbius centring as variational problem (Phase 9d.4 — replaces the iterative Fréchet-mean fallback in `normalise_hyperbolic()`) * +Boundary-First / interactive flattening row (Crane 2017 BFF; Stripe Patterns 2015) — listed for comparison even though it is not on the porting roadmap, so the reader sees we know about it * table caption clarifies that some rows are RESEARCH-only (no Java parent) and some are planned ports "What's new" banner ─────────────────── * citation count corrected from "+9" to "+13" — the four Tier-2 papers added in commit `e8a118f` (Springborn 2019, Springborn–Veselov 2015, Crane 2017 BFF, Bonneel et al. 2015 Stripe Patterns) are now named * phase count of "+6 phases" kept, but +Phase 9d.4 (Möbius centring) and +Phase 10e (quasi-isothermic) are now called out explicitly so the reader knows what is in the count * cross-link to `java-parity.md` for the reverse table (every Java class → C++ destination or *do-not-port* rationale) questions.md / Q1 ───────────────── * expand the table from 3 to 6 candidate phases — adding 10e (quasi- isothermic), 10b (hyperelliptic), and 9d.4 (Möbius centring) as options alongside the existing 9d.2 / 9f / 10c+10c′ * track column distinguishes RESEARCH-only from planned-port * +Question C — "is there a seventh line we are missing?" — invites the reader to flag a research thread we have not scoped yet Pages hub will be refreshed to v5 in a follow-up step (separate from the in-repo commit, lives only on the codeberg `pages` branch). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-26 06:18:41 +02:00
Tarik Moussa	6543abac12	docs(reviewer): refresh hub link list — add roadmap, research-track, references ... Updates the "Quick links the reviewer should bookmark" section of doc/reviewer/README.md so it matches the Pages-hub v4 layout: * the hub itself now carries status badges, a "what's new" banner, and the research-alignment table — call this out so the reader knows what to expect when they click through; * adds direct links to the three documents that the new Q1/Q2/Q3 questions actually depend on (references.md, phases.md, research-track.md) — previously only the Schläfli-derivation note and the locked-vs-flexible architecture page were linked; * re-points the Schläfli derivation link from "Q2" (old numbering) to "Q3" (new numbering after baustein B inserted research questions at Q1/Q2). Companion change to the Pages-hub v4 already pushed to the codeberg `pages` branch; this commit keeps the in-repo guidance in sync. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-26 00:25:11 +02:00
Tarik Moussa	07c653cb4c	docs(reviewer): research alignments + 2 new Q1/Q2 + reordered agenda ... Adds the two research-track questions to the front of the queue, where they belong for a reader whose publication line maps directly onto our research-track roadmap entries. briefing.md gains two new sections: * Research alignments — a 6-row table mapping the reader's research threads (decorated DCE, canonical tessellations, hyperideal rigidity, optimal cone placement, polygon Laplacian, Schläfli machinery) onto concrete phases of the roadmap, with the closest published line cited generically (year + venue only). * What's new on this snapshot — the 6 new porting phases + 9 new citations + Phase 9f (RESEARCH, no Java parent) + output_uv_map extension to Inversive-Distance. questions.md restructures the question set from 5 to 7: * Q1 (NEW) — research-track alignment: which of 9d.2 / 9f / 10c / 10c′ would unblock concrete experiments? * Q2 (NEW) — decorated-DCE API surface: A/B/C named parameter vs new solver vs property-map auto-detect? * Q3 — Phase 9b-analytic (was Q2) * Q4 — Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive (was Q1) * Q5 — GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship (was Q5) * Q6 — CGAL submission packaging (was Q4) * Q7 — The "no" question (was the trailing section) Also drops Q3 from the previous list (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map), since that question is now answered (Phase 9c, runtime error today, on the deferred list — no reviewer input needed). Adds a final "After the meeting — would you collaborate?" block so the post-meeting collaboration options (acknowledgement / co-author / cadence / PRs) do not surprise the reader on the day. agenda.md reorders §2 to match the new question order; the timing shifts Q1/Q2/Q3 (research) to the front and Q4/Q6 (project management) to the back. Memo template at the bottom now has 7 named answer slots instead of 5 numbered ones. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-26 00:21:50 +02:00
Tarik Moussa	1eff8c6bce	docs(reviewer): anonymise reviewer references; profile-based framing ... Replaces the "Springborn / Bobenko alumnus" placeholder in the reviewer materials (briefing, questions, agenda, README) and in locked-vs-flexible.md with a research-profile description: active researcher in the decorated-DCE / Penner-coordinates / canonical-tessellations / hyperideal-polyhedra line, treated as a peer most likely to USE conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure for their own future experiments — not merely to evaluate it. Citations to the published literature (Springborn 2020 paper, etc.) remain untouched. Only personal references to the prospective reviewer were anonymised. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-26 00:19:30 +02:00
Tarik Moussa	7a1686daa5	feat: output_uv_map for InversiveDistance, error for CP-Euclidean, reviewer trio ... Three reviewer-meeting deliverables in one commit. (1) output_uv_map for the two remaining DCE entries ───────────────────────────────────────────────── * Discrete_inversive_distance.h: full implementation. After Newton, reconstruct effective Euclidean edge lengths from the converged log-radii via the Bowers-Stephenson identity `ℓᵢⱼ² = rᵢ² + rⱼ² + 2·Iᵢⱼ·rᵢ·rⱼ`, populate a temporary EuclideanMaps with `lambda0 = log(ℓᵢⱼ²)`, and reuse the existing `euclidean_layout(mesh, 0, eucl)` priority-BFS. Per-vertex Point_2 coordinates written into the user-supplied pmap. Optional `normalise_layout(true)` applies the canonical PCA centroid + major-axis rotation, same as the other 3 entries. * Discrete_circle_packing.h: throws std::runtime_error with a clear pointer to Phase 9c rather than silently producing nonsense. CP-Euclidean is face-based; the faithful output is a per-face circle packing in ℝ², not a per-vertex Point_2 map. A true layout requires BPS-2010 §6 (~150 lines, on the porting roadmap as Phase 9c). Failing loudly is the honest default. Tests: 2 new cases in test_cgal_phase8b_lite.cpp (OutputUvMap_InversiveDistance_PopulatesPmap; OutputUvMap_CPEuclidean_ThrowsClearly). Both green. Suite total now 259 (was 257, +2). CGAL subtotal: 234 → 236. (2) Reviewer meeting documents ────────────────────────── New directory doc/reviewer/ with three files: * briefing.md — one-page orientation for the reviewer. What the project is, where to look first (https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/), the headline evidence (tests/coverage/sanitizers/license), what we want from them, what's deferred and why, and the 5 questions in a separate file. * questions.md — the 5 concrete decisions we want their second opinion on: Q1 Phase 9c (port-literal vs re-derive) Q2 Phase 9b-analytic (worth ~2 weeks for ~6× speedup?) Q3 CP-Euclidean output_uv_map (build now or defer?) Q4 CGAL submission strategy (one package or five?) Q5 geometry-central cross-validation co-authorship Plus an explicit "what would you say no to?" question at the bottom — negative feedback is the highest-value information. * agenda.md — my own internal playbook (NOT to be sent). 60-min flow: 5-min thank-you, 10-min architecture tour, 30-min for Q1-Q5 in the order Q4-Q1-Q2-Q5-Q3, 5-min "no" question, 5-min wrap-up. Includes post-meeting memo template to fill out in the 30 min after. * README.md — index for the directory; says which file goes to whom and when to send. (3) locked-vs-flexible.md known-limitations update ───────────────────────────────────────────── "output_uv_map covers 3 of 5 entries" → "covers 4 of 5". CP-Euclidean's throws-clearly behaviour documented as a Phase 9c deliverable rather than a passive gap. Bonus: extended .codespellrc ignore list (acknowledgement, the British-English spelling I used in agenda.md). Verifications on this commit: 259/259 tests pass (0 skipped) scripts/check-test-counts.sh: OK (23 + 236 = 259) scripts/quality/license-headers.sh: OK (66/66 SPDX) python3 scripts/quality/cgal-conventions.py: OK (0/6 violations) scripts/quality/codespell.sh: OK (0 typos) scripts/quality/shellcheck.sh: OK (0 findings) python3 scripts/check-markdown-links.py: OK (143/143) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-05-24 21:40:55 +02:00