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 - michael [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 ciere.com