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 comments placed there are automatically out of date and misleading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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk