[Aedis] Formal Review: We could have done better
In hindsight, I feel like perhaps we collectively failed the review process. I think that Boost.Aedis was in fact not ready for a review and it did a disservice both to the library and the author that we rushed to review it. Instead, the relevant subject matter experts such as I, Alan de Freitas, Klemens Morgenstern, Reuben Perez, to a lesser extent Christian Mazakas, Mohammed, and a few others should have taken Aedis under our wing and helped to "get it into shape" before the review. Speaking for myself I wish I had put more time into helping the author get the library into the best possible condition. Instead of waiting until the review, I should have helped Marcelo address the flaws ahead of time. For example: <https://github.com/mzimbres/aedis/issues/51> and <https://github.com/mzimbres/aedis/issues/47> The library should not have gone into the review without one or more revisions to the documentation so that common questions that came up during the review were already answered, perhaps in a FAQ section. In particular, reviewers should not have had to ask why async_run or async_exec (see my example exposition in issue 51 above). I also think that the library would have benefited from a concerted effort to get it in the hands of users. I spent a bunch of energy ahead of time to get users for Beast before submitting it for review. It was already deployed in production systems, and there were other projects that started integrating it both open source and closed. We should have at the very least advertised Aedis in places like the redis++ repository (perhaps with a new GitHub issue). Forums, and such. And looked for individual C++ projects already using Redis and informed them of Aedis. For any new libraries we should look at the lesson of Aedis and consider whether or not a similar treatment would result in a better review of the candidate library. Regardless, I have the highest regard for Marcelo as he demonstrates a mastery of Asio and a commitment to quality, even if the library's outcome of the review is not favorable. -- Regards, Vinnie Follow me on GitHub: https://github.com/vinniefalco
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 22:05, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
In hindsight, I feel like perhaps we collectively failed the review process. I think that Boost.Aedis was in fact not ready for a review and it did a disservice both to the library and the author that we rushed to review it. [...]
There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. If it is necessary and desired by reviewers, prospect users and author, and author is interested and willing to improve library, then nothing wrong with having re-review, and re-re-review... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure as every cloud has a silver lining. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On 1/25/23 1:21 PM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 22:05, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
In hindsight, I feel like perhaps we collectively failed the review process. I think that Boost.Aedis was in fact not ready for a review and it did a disservice both to the library and the author that we rushed to review it. [...]
There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. If it is necessary and desired by reviewers, prospect users and author, and author is interested and willing to improve library, then nothing wrong with having re-review, and re-re-review...
So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure as every cloud has a silver lining.
Best regards,
FWIW - The serialization library, after much feedback and consideration was initially rejected by Boost. This was the correct decision as it wasn't really ready by a long shot. Me being me, this was not a cause for dispare, but rather inspiration to re-double my efforts. The result is the serialization library you today. This occurred around 2003. I hope you find this bit of history helpful. Robert Ramey
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. ... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure
I disagree. Writing a review is a significant investment of effort and we need all the reviews we can get. It wastes reviewers' time when they have to review the same library twice. I think everyone would agree that when someone re-reviews a library it will not quite live up to the same level of energy and thoughtfulness as the original review. Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens every time, re-reviews get less engagement). "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." We set prospective libraries up for success when we take time ahead of the review for subject matter experts, stakeholders, and volunteers who are interested in improving Boost, to "pre-review" the library and help the author address any likely hiccups before the formal review. To "incubate" it if you will (h/t Robert). But the sort of incubation which more resembles a short period of focused revision guided by experts, immediately preceding the review date. Thanks
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, 9:59 am Vinnie Falco via Boost, <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. ... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure ... Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens every time, re-reviews get less engagement).
"You never get a second chance to make a first impression." ... We set prospective libraries up for success when we take time ahead of the review for subject matter experts, stakeholders, and volunteers who are interested in improving Boost, to "pre-review" the library and help the author address any likely hiccups before the formal review. To "incubate"...
Thanks Mateusz, Vinnie, Marcelo and all the reviewers. I'm just a voice of appreciation from the sidelines (of this round) for both the aedis library and re Boost "health" in general. Pre or not the review / reviewer effort has, I hope, helped the author/progressed the library. Is there not potential to make the review result a platform for gaining a "community" round the library, and when it is ready, to submit again? Surely any such community would include many (new) potential reviewers as well as mentors, and so provide "incubation"? I think this review can be a success. It is not match over. All the best Darryl.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 00:59, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. ... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure
I disagree. Writing a review is a significant investment of effort and we need all the reviews we can get. It wastes reviewers' time when they have to review the same library twice. I think everyone would agree that when someone re-reviews a library it will not quite live up to the same level of energy and thoughtfulness as the original review. Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens every time, re-reviews get less engagement).
My view is that most of reviewers are (assumed to be) also prospect users (with knowledge of technology or domain a library is about) who are also keenly interested in using the library under review. Hence, they are also keenly interested to review the improved library again as they take it as an opportunity to shape the library they are going to use. It could be that my view is based on incorrect observations and wrong assumptions. Then, well, it's only cows who never change their opinion. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
participants (4)
-
Darryl Green -
Mateusz Loskot -
Robert Ramey -
Vinnie Falco