On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:26 PM Christian Mazakas via Boost
I only volunteered for the mireo library (i.e. the "other" one from your perspective). I don't think redboltz is ready for review so I don't want to be RM. Furthermore I fear I might be too biased between the two of the libraries to be review manager of both.
Hmm, a review manager admitting a strong bias for a potential library isn't a good look.
Where did I use the word "strong" exactly? It's just a more complex decision that means it's harder to know and then purposely ignore one's own bias, because it's a single variable. With two libraries you end up with a more complex situation where the way you present the libraries or schedule the reviews might advantage one over the other. And that can be subconscious, e.g. when announcing the review I might put some emphasis on a certain feature or deficiency of one library might influence reviewers a certain way. That's hard to account for, whereas a review decision that disagrees with my own opinion is pretty easy to reach and I have in the past. But I don't think it's a good idea to have a single review manager for two libraries in a competitive review with unclear rules. Maybe one of the review wizards and provide some wisdom on how this might work?
To the point though, we should accept the protocol library one so it can be used for other networking implementations. Modern advancements can make implementations roughly 2x as fast as Asio.
Well redboltz isn't a pure protocol library in that sense either, it's just lower level than mireos. It's still very much married to asio. It's akin to beast being on the protocol level, while a library like python-requests is a simpler client. To the point though, "we should accept" is not a thing to be discussed while scheduling a review, but during review.
- Christian
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost