7a1686daa5
Some checks failed
C++ Tests / test-fast (pull_request) Successful in 2m26s
API Docs / doc-build (pull_request) Successful in 51s
Markdown link check / check (pull_request) Successful in 48s
C++ Tests / test-cgal (pull_request) Failing after 11m25s
C++ Tests / quality-gates (pull_request) Successful in 2m22s
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>
115 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
115 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Reviewer meeting — agenda (for me)
|
||
|
||
> **Audience.** Myself, before the meeting. Not shared with the
|
||
> reviewer (they have [`briefing.md`](briefing.md) and
|
||
> [`questions.md`](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`](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`](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`](questions.md), and
|
||
[`briefing.md`](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).
|