Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-29 12:21:28
On 08/29/2015 06:34 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2015 at 22:30, Michael Caisse wrote:
>> There have been several suggestions (implicit and explicit) to move this
>> type into the boost::afio namespace, but I haven' seen a response from
>> you. Have I just missed it?
> It's more that the suggestion is irrelevant with respect to the
> library. The code base as presented for review already exclusively
> uses boost::afio::monad<T>. It is only the just-added workshop
> tutorial which uses monad directly which made people think monad is
> not an internal library, and which I now realise was a mistake due to
> bad optics.
>> I'm afraid that AFIO isn't able to be reviewed because there are so many
>> questions about other someday-to-be libraries in the boost namespace.
>> What are your thoughts?
> I think many if not most other reviewers have not found the namespace
> layout nor dependent libraries an obstacle to making good reviews.
Hi Niall -
I think you may have missed parts of reviews. A few influential
reviewers  have indicated that having components such as Monad and
APBind is a non-starter for a review or an immediate "no" vote (Vicente
 and Robert are just two on the user list... others on the dev list).
You have put a great deal of effort into this library and I would like
to see the chances of acceptance during the review not hindered by
non-essential choices. The bottom line is that implementations in the
boost::afio namespace will have different scrutiny than automatic
promotion to the boost namespace. Start with these concepts in the
boost::afio namespace and then at a later date, request a review to
promote them to the boost namespace as full-fledged libraries.
I don't think it is worth risking the review outcome on trying to get
multiple libraries into the boost namespace.
Take care -
 The input from existing authors, maintainers, and highly involved
community members is often heavily weighted by review managers as they
make their decisions.
 User ML, 08-Aug-2015, "Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal
review of Boost.AFIO" - Multiple emails suggesting resolutions including
one that states:
"We have two options:
* we wait to review AFIO once Monad is reviewed in Boost
* You include in AFIO, whatever you consider is need from Monad and only
then we review AFIO.
-- Michael Caisse ciere consulting ciere.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk