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 17:58:00

On 8/17/15 2:15 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2015 at 8:09, Robert Ramey wrote:
>
> I think the Incubator is appropriate for libraries which have matured
> and are not undergoing continuing rapid development. Otherwise
> comments placed there are automatically out of date and misleading
> and could even been seen as an unwarranted permanent black mark
> uneraseable from Google.
>
> Personally speaking, I've always wished that after 500 github commits
> an Incubator comment would be deleted. I appreciate there is a fair
> bit of complexity implementing that automatically however.

That would be a worthy suggestion.  But until there is a large number of 
comments, it would be premature to find a way to implement it.  I don't 
think it would be that hard to implement withing the current scheme.

>> 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.

> I think no one uses a proposed Boost library really until it goes for
> review unless your name is Eric Niebler or someone equally famous,

Well, I can tell you that it happened a lot when making the 
serialization library.  It's the one thing that kept me going after the 
library got rejected the first time.  I think if the library fill a real 
known need and saves developers time, it will be downloaded.  Again, I 
haven't found a way to add such statistics on this.  Also I would very 
much like to see library usage statistics on current boost libraries as 
well.  Our deployment scheme can't support this though.

> and even then I remember Eric telling me he reckoned no more than 50
> people are really looking at Ranges in any depth.

I think this is different.  Eric, Louis, and others are offering a whole 
new way of doing things.  Http, serialization, data_time, etc. address 
problems which people already have and need a solution for - usually in 
two hours!!!  Of course boost has room for all kinds of stuff.

> I think that's entirely the whole point of the Boost review really: expert eyeballs.

Agreed.  I'm just trying to process more effective and expedient.

> FYI I know of about seven people who have ever even tried AFIO in 30
> months. It's too niche, though when you see my brand new workshop
> tutorial with benchmarks on Friday I think that might radically
> change :).

Maybe a year ago I went though the documentation of AFIO and wrote a 
comment based on that experience.  I've seen that the package has 
improved enormously since then. I like to think that my comment made a 
small difference. (Incidently, I removed my old comment because I didn't 
think it was relevant any more.)  I think I'm starting to get an idea of 
what problem the thing is supposed to address.  Can't say for sure 
though - I'd have to spend more time on it.  Based on this and the 
information above, I like to think that the incubator has been somewhat 
helpful in spite of the fact it hasn't realized all the aspirations I've 
had for it.

Robert Ramey