Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-23 10:50:14
On 23 Aug 2015 at 9:37, Roland Bock wrote:
> >> Monday on July-20. But the [new] review start date was Friday August-21.
> > I delivered a review ready AFIO on Friday. Ahmed is currently busy,
> > and I am sure once he becomes unbusy he will announce the review in
> > the usual way.
> Out of curiosity:
> What's the big rush? Just a month ago, the library was in sucha state,
> that you canceled the review. Now you just "finished" a ready-for-review
> library on the day the review was supposed to start?
There is no rush. The library was finished in its present form around
August 8th (you can check the commit log). Since then it's been
almost entirely dotting i's and crossing t's and writing the new
> And the review is supposed to have started even though the review manager
> was so busy that he could not even send a single mail.
We all have unexpected things turn up when we don't expect. Ahmed is
doing his best, same as all of us.
> You also mentioned:
> > A later *internal* implementation will
> > be completely new, but that isn't important to this review because
> > little external changes.
> To me this is another indicator that maybe it is a bit early.
> One of the aspects of the review is to look at the implementation.
Please DO look at the implementation. Any code which calls a filing
system API won't be changing. The stuff which will be (internally)
changing is how the ASIO reactor is used. That's all.
> Sounds like we can drop that item for this review, since it won't last
> too long anyway?
The four APIs scheduled for deprecation listed at
tml can be skipped. Otherwise all other implementation is up for
> Don't get me wrong, maybe you are just the victim of your own honesty
> and full disclosure policy (admirable traits, btw). But judging by the
> mails you wrote in the last few days, if it were my library, I would
> kindly ask to treat this more like a pre-review of the new design. The
> full review would then be done once the implementation is as you want it.
I think some are minded to blow out of proportion how "unfinished"
AFIO is for various personal reasons or out of ignorance.
I would not be submitting AFIO for review here if I did not consider
it production ready.
And I should emphasise that the choice to implement the new API on
top of the mature engine was something I came here to boost-dev to
ask for advice upon many months ago, and what you have here today is
what was wanted then. I have delivered what was asked of me -
admittedly a month late, but three weeks of that went on writing a
new tutorial which was asked of me by people here on boost-dev last
month. If I hadn't have written the new tutorial due to the feedback
last month, I would have been just a week late, not bad for a ~400
man hour project.
I am happy to continue to receive feedback from people here on what
further work needs to be done, and implement solutions to problems
found by reviewers as I have been doing since 2013. That's why the
library is up for review.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk