Re: [boost] [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday

Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-24 01:30:40

On 2015-08-23 16:50, Niall Douglas wrote:
> 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 
> tutorial.
>
>> 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 
> https://boostgsoc13.github.io/boost.afio/doc/html/afio/release_notes.h
> tml can be skipped. Otherwise all other implementation is up for 
> review.
>
>> 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.
>
Thanks for your answer!

I will try to take a closer look, although I cannot promise to get a
review done in time (lots on my table these days).

Roland