Subject: Re: [boost] [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-11 03:01:55
> From: Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess_at_[hidden]>
> On Monday 10 January 2011, Artyom wrote:
> > When and how it would go to review.
> > My current situation:
> > - Boost.Locale - I currently maintain two versions: CppCMS's one
> > and Boost one - because I need it and on the other side it is not in
> > boost. - It is stuck in the review queue for about half a year.
> > - I did big boostification effort and I pay for it.
> > So should I do same mistake with CppDB and wait for another year to get
> > it reviewed and maintain two versions?
> Just to put out an idea: it seems to me developers tend to be more
> interested in submitting libraries than doing reviews or being review
> managers. Maybe boost could balance the scales by requiring library
> submitters to either be a review manager or review a couple submissions
> from others before their library can be accepted.
Ok I want to submit a library so I need to be a reviewer or
review manager, so lets review couple of libraries - remove
the from the queue and then lets submit mine.
However even with this very optimistic scenario you'll get a big problem:
In order to submit review I have to review a 2-3 libraries first.
According to "optimistic scenario" we would run out of libraries
in review queue which is nice. But then in order to bring a new
library you need to review others... Ooops - there are no!
1. In order go "gain 2-3" reviews library submitters would be forced
at least to review libraries... So they:
a. Review libraries and submit reviews for domains that they are
barely aware of them or not aware of them at all.
This would lead to disaster. Think of somebody reviews cryptographic
library or lock-free library and barely know the issues that can
be there. Potentially new boost libraries would become total mess.
b. Even today there is a big problem that most reviewers mostly
concentrate on interface and documentation and barely look to
the source code.
I had read reviews of several libraries. Unfortunately almost nobody
actually reads the code. Why? Because it is hard.
Do you actually think that the quality of such "forced" reviews would
be better? I think no, in fact the valuable reviews would be
shadowed by the noise of these "unless-reviews"
Good reviewer should be:
- Knowledgeable of the problem domain
- Interested in this library and using it in reality
- Be able to understand how the library works from inside
and to find some points that are actually problematic.
2. If new library submitters would volunteer to be review managers, they
would likely now be too familiar with Boost internals and doughty if
the quality of their management would be good.
This is not going to work.
Back to the reviews problem
When I started to develop boost.locale I hadn't had to
support wide strings as they useless for my project
I need Boost.Locale for - CppCMS.
IMHO wide strings should die at some point.
However keeping in mind that Boost users are using
wide stings I created a full support of them in Boost.Locale.
I did many things that I would not do them at all if I knew
that Boost.Locale would be stuck in review queue despite
the fact that it actually received several positive
(and actually real high quality) reviews from the begging
without actually having formal review.
Now I have other smaller library that I think works very well
and would fill important gap that boost Misses.
Now: should I put the effort in Boostification of the CppDB library
or users and can happily use it without being under boost namespace?
I think yes.
It is not the question of quality of the library or its usability
it is just pragmatic question:
Should I do lots of work and see its totally wasted?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk