conformallab/ConformalLabpp
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity
Files
7a1686daa5e1aa2a64614f5790d1aefb258d7122
ConformalLabpp/doc/reviewer/agenda.md
Tarik Moussa 7a1686daa5
Some checks failed
C++ Tests / test-fast (pull_request) Successful in 2m26s
Details
API Docs / doc-build (pull_request) Successful in 51s
Details
Markdown link check / check (pull_request) Successful in 48s
Details
C++ Tests / test-cgal (pull_request) Failing after 11m25s
Details
C++ Tests / quality-gates (pull_request) Successful in 2m22s
Details
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

3.8 KiB
Raw Blame History

Reviewer meeting — agenda (for me)

Audience. Myself, before the meeting. Not shared with the reviewer (they have briefing.md and questions.md instead).

Purpose. Keep the conversation on the high-stakes items without slipping into detail-tour mode.

Length: ~60 min (default; willing to extend if conversation is productive).

Opening — 5 min

  • Thank-you + ~30 s on why I value their time specifically (Springborn/Bobenko background = best-positioned audience for this material).
  • Confirm format: they've read briefing.md? Yes → skip ahead. No → take 3 min to walk through it together via the reviewer-hub URL.

§1 Architectural tour — 10 min

Goal: they leave §1 with a mental map of what's where.

  1. Open https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/.
  2. Click through:
    • Doxygen → discrete_conformal_map_euclidean (the canonical entry, shows the named-parameter pattern + traits).
    • locked-vs-flexible.md § Summary table.
    • dependencies.md § TL;DR.
  3. Don't demo running the test suite live unless they ask — they can verify the green badges later.

Cue to move on: when they have no more "where is X?" questions.

§2 The five questions — 30 min

Goal: get clear answers to as many of the 5 questions in questions.md as possible. Order matters:

  1. Q4 first (CGAL submission strategy — single package vs five). This sets the framing for the rest. ~5 min.
  2. Q1 (Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive). ~5 min.
  3. Q2 (Phase 9b-analytic — is the 6× speedup worth ~2 weeks?). May trigger longer math discussion; cap at 10 min and offer to continue async.
  4. Q5 (GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship). ~5 min.
  5. Q3 (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map). ~5 min.

Trap to avoid: don't relitigate any of the already-made decisions (e.g. Surface_mesh as default, Eigen as backend) unless they bring it up under "anything you'd say no to". Move forward, not sideways.

§3 The "no" question — 5 min

Last paragraph of questions.md: "Is there one architecture decision where you think 'no, that's the wrong call'?"

Ask explicitly. Wait. Don't fill silence. Negative feedback at this phase is the highest-value information of the entire meeting.

§4 Wrap-up — 5 min

  • Summarise: 1 sentence per Q1–Q5 answer.
  • Next steps:
    • Items they offered to help on (if any) → I'll send a follow-up email within 48 h.
    • Items they flagged as worth changing → I'll write a one-page plan + send for sign-off before starting work.
  • Cadence: do they want a periodic update? Once-a-quarter? When hitting Phase 9c milestone?
  • Citation: ask whether they want acknowledgement in the CGAL submission's THANKS.md.

Material I have ready (in tabs)

  1. https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/
  2. https://codeberg.org/TMoussa/ConformalLabpp (source)
  3. Local terminal in the repo (for any "show me X" requests)
  4. doc/math/hyperideal-hessian-derivation.md open in editor (for Q2)
  5. doc/architecture/locked-vs-flexible.md open at "Summary table"
  6. This file, questions.md, and briefing.md for backstop.

After the meeting

  • 30-min decompression — don't take notes during the meeting beyond bullet-tracking of Q1–Q5 answers; write up a full memo in the 30 min AFTER.

  • Memo template:

    Date:  ____
Reviewer:  ____
Duration:  ____ min

Q1 answer:  ____
Q2 answer:  ____
Q3 answer:  ____
Q4 answer:  ____
Q5 answer:  ____
"No" pointer:  ____

Action items:
  [ ] (within 48 h)  ____
  [ ] (within 2 wks) ____
  [ ] (longer term)  ____

Cadence agreed:  ____

  • Store the memo at doc/reviewer/2026-XX-XX-meeting-notes.md (gitignored if confidential, otherwise committed).