Re: [boost] [http] Boost.Http formal review is finished

Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Boost.Http formal review is finished
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-17 11:09:23

On 8/17/15 2:08 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
> The formal review of Boost.Http is finished, and I would like to thank
> all who participated.
>
> The following reviews have been recorded:
>
>   - Antony Polukhin: No
>   - Darren Cook: No
>   - David Sankel: No
>   - Lee Clagett: No
>   - Niall Douglas: Yes, conditionally
>   - Roland Bock: No
>   - Tom Kent: No
>
> Please let me know if I have missed any.
>
> The final review results will be posted later.

I'm going to jump the gun a little and presume that this library will be 
rejected but I want to comment while the topic is still "hot".

To me it's very unfortunate that so much effort has had to be expended 
by a library author to produce a library that is not accepted.  It's 
also unfortunate that so many reviewers need to spend this much time to 
dig up enough information to reach this consensus.  This illustrates my 
motivation behind the design of the boost library incubator.  Imagine an 
alternate scenario.

a) Vinicius submits his library to the incubator.  He did this exactly 
as requested and fulfilled all the requirements listed in the incubator. 
I don't think he found the process onerous in anyway.  So far so good.

b) One person commented on his submission and Vinicius replied. So far 
so good.

c) Now we come up with the review and only then do we get a really 
serious look at the library in all it's aspects.  The criticism is 
constructive, but it's too late to change the submission.

d) Had Vinicius gotten this feedback earlier, the submission would have 
been different or perhaps not even reviewed at all.

e) Had people started to download the library, run the tests and try to 
use it in their own code a lot of information would have come out much 
earlier.  This information would have been helpful to everyone involved. 
  This didn't happen.  Or at least, not that I know of.  Neither the 
incubator nor github keep statistics on library downloads. I does keep 
statistics on views of the library page.  These statistics can be 
displayed via the "Display Statistics" button on the library page.  They 
show 701 pages views in the last 90 days.

f) I notice that a couple of libraries submitted for formal review 
haven't submitted to the incubator.  This concerns me as one of the 
motivations of the incubator was to make for information available and 
avoid a scenario whereby libraries "snuck though" the review process and 
ended up having some surprises which I was unhappy about.

So I'm disappointed that the incubator hasn't really achieved what I 
hoped it would.  On the upside, it doesn't require much maintenance so 
I'm inclined to keep it up.  Occasionally I increment functionality when 
I see an easy/expedient way to do it.  I'm also on the lookout for 
free/easy/clever ways to improve functionality.

Robert Ramey