Re: [boost] This AFIO review - a modest proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] This AFIO review - a modest proposal
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-23 14:31:25

On 23 Aug 2015 at 9:55, Robert Ramey wrote:

> Reading the other posts I see trouble ahead.  There is a strong current 
> that suggests that the library is not ready to be reviewed. 

Well, on that point:

1. AFIO has been in the review queue since 2013.

2. I am fairly confident you can write reliable, performant file 
system applications with AFIO right now. It certainly has seen plenty 
of testing.

3. All the "heavy development" people refer to are, for the most 
part, me going off and implementing feedback from people such as 
yourself by wrapping the essentially unchanged core engine with "ease 
of use" convenience APIs. I think you'll agree it looks a very 
different library now than when you first reviewed it last year right 
Robert? That's me responding to your feedback that you thought the 
old API was unintuitive.

However the internal engine last saw much change a good six months 
ago, and that was to add race free filesystem which wasn't anything 
fundamental. People are blowing way out of proportion how much 
serious change has been made to AFIO recently. The core engine has 
been stable since 2013/2014. How much more stable does a Boost 
library need to be before being considered production ready?

4. I think there is a BIG difference between "is it ready to be 
reviewed?" and "is it ready to enter Boost?". I think it's an 
emphatic yes to the first question: here is a well tested, stable 
Boost library with high quality documentation and high quality 
testing which has already undergone multiple rounds of feedback and 
review, most of which has been fed back into changes and reforms to 
the user facing library API.

In the end, you have got to ask "when is enough enough?" before it's 
review ready?

Is a well designed API, high quality documentation, high quality 
testing and a core implementation stable for over six months no 
longer sufficient for a library to enter Boost? All the new APIs are 
thin wrappers over the old APIs, all of which are mostly unchanged 
since 2013. The core implementation is essentially the same as end of 
GSoC 2013. And as I mentioned, I only added the new APIs wrapping the 
old APIs due to feedback from yourself and others.

If there are severe design flaws in AFIO, then it absolutely should 
be rejected. But thanks to those multiple rounds of feedback, I think 
most of the rusty nails have been hammered down by now. In which 
case, what showstoppers remain between AFIO as presented and 
acceptance?

Is acceptance of AFIO into Boost going to be judged on technical 
reasons, or politics, or "I don't understand the point of this 
library?"

> And there are strong concerns that you've rolled up too much in to one
> package. 

I think this is entirely a valid concern, and I would absolutely 
accept acceptance conditions listing what needs to be dropped.

> There is also some antipathy regarding they way you've gone about this 
> and used the list so there is less inclination than there might 
> otherwise be to cut you some slack.  All this raises the bar to 
> acceptance higher than it might otherwise be - which is already quite high.

As soon as I challenged the authority of certain people with an 
alternative vision I was going to be heckled and hasseled every step 
of the way onwards, both publicly and behind my back. That much 
became very evident very early on, and for the record I wish it 
weren't so, but you play the hand you're dealt and in every case it 
has been someone who attacked me first even if that wasn't publicly 
known, and I responded because nobody else was going to and unlike 
other internet communities, there is not a strong central leadership 
here so you are on your own to fight Darwinian style on every little 
thing, so you get all this conflict and bitterness and unpleasantness 
resulting. Which is a shame: it's wasted energy better spent on 
writing code. But I also don't like being bullied, I *particularly* 
don't like other people being bullied, and there was a lot of 
bullying here back in 2012-2013 (much of which I think was 
unintentional and just a product of then Boost culture). That happens 
far less frequently now, and I would like to hope some of that less 
adversarial more supportive culture is due to my efforts and 
responses, even if it made me enemies along the way.

I prefer a quiet harmonious life. My life away from dealing with 
Boost politics is extremely quiet and harmonious, I think I remember 
telling you some of how boring I am in the Aspen bar at C++ Now.

> I propose that:
> 
> a) this review be postponed.

I'll abide by whatever the review manager decides.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/