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

Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Boost.Http formal review is finished
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-17 21:28:33

On 8/17/2015 11:09 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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.

I think it is manifestly unfair to the author of the Boost.Http library 
to make these comments before a final review result has been made.

>  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.