Re: [boost] This AFIO review - a modest proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] This AFIO review - a modest proposal
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-23 12:55:57

On 8/23/15 7:33 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2015 at 23:18, Robert Ramey wrote:
>
>> To put things in perspective, I might relate my experience along these
>> lines with the serialization library.
>
> Firstly, thanks for the story. I found it very supportive.

Glad you appreciated it.  I wasn't really trying to be supportive so 
much as making enough factual/historical information available to keep 
the discussion from veering off into space.

Reading the other posts I see trouble ahead.  There is a strong current 
that suggests that the library is not ready to be reviewed.  And there 
are strong concerns that you've rolled up too much in to one package. 
There is also some antipathy regarding they way you've gone about this 
and used the list so there is less inclination than there might 
otherwise be to cut you some slack.  All this raises the bar to 
acceptance higher than it might otherwise be - which is already quite high.

A Modest Proposal
=================

Given that:

a) I want to maximize the chances that a library submitted for review to 
boost is accepted.  My motivations should be obvious.

b) I'm concerned that due to problems cited above, there is a strong 
chance that this library would be rejected.

c) I believe that there may be very useful ideas in this submission that 
I would like to see get serious consideration.

d) Posts on this topic suggest that there are strongly held concerns 
that the implementation is not robust enough to be usefully reviewed.

e) Once a library has been rejected, it is almost impossible that it 
will be reviewed a second time.  (There is one exception - the 
serialization library.  You don't want to go this route - please trust 
me on this.)

f) I'm personally inclined to cut you a little slack because you haven't 
pissed me off as much as you have other people and I much appreciate 
your efforts on various boost projects.

I propose that:

a) this review be postponed.

b) those people who have already expressed strong reservations post 
comments and/or full blown reviews in the boost library incubator.  I 
would hope this would smoke out enough issues so that they can be 
addressed in advance of the formal review.

The incubator has always been intended to work this way, but it hasn't 
such a huge need as there is in this case.  I want this library to be 
brought to the state that the formal review is much easier and more 
productive.

Of course I'm flogging my own stuff here - again I plead guilty.  This 
one of the kinds of situations that the incubator was intended to address.

Robert Ramey