Boost logo

Boost :

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 [1] have indicated that having components such as Monad and
APBind is a non-starter for a review or an immediate "no" vote (Vicente
[2] 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 -

[1] The input from existing authors, maintainers, and highly involved
community members is often heavily weighted by review managers as they
make their decisions.

[2] 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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at