On 29 Aug 2015 at 23:24, Pete Bartlett wrote:
Robert wrote:
I hope [Ahmed] can find enough time to [manage the review]. I'm sure that it's more than he thought he was signing up for.
In my view Ahmed's job is _potentially_ quite easy:
There are about five main topics of debate by my count. I think a compromise or consensus is approaching in each, and that should make it easier to summarise.
I think Niall is a smart and big enough guy to realise that even if he applies a discount factor to those reviews that he thinks are overly-hostile due to a personality clash, the general consensus is still not strong enough to an "accept" at this time, and therefore a withdrawal is appropriate. He could come back with a plan - "here's what I am going to change, here's what I am going to keep the same" and hopefully get some immediate feedback. Maybe some will say "sorry, you not changing X is a showstopper" and Niall can choose whether he wants to pursue with the changes. If he wants to pursue, we re-review.
Exactly what I envisioned. The review to date has been very useful, and is exactly what I needed at this stage.
Personally I like the library and would be minded to accept regardless of whether Niall chose to keep his "shared" style or switch to the "standard" style outlined by Thomas Heller (and apologies if I am pushing anyone's buttons by calling it "standard"). That seems to be the only substantive design issue - the rest - the namespaces, the #if 0, parts of the documentation, the irrelevant v1, is basically bike-shedding stuff that could be changed after an accept.
I absolutely agree. And I think we may be approaching a compromise in the Heller thread, and even that alone is but a few hours of work to implement. To date assuming we reach resolutions as they currently appear to be heading, I count less than 40 hours of work needed to repair anything code related that has been raised in this review so far. The only real showstopper is the documentation, and I suspect another 40 hours would fix 80% of the most reported problems. That's just a few months of low hanging fruit to pick. It's less than I expected.
Finally whilst I'm up on the soapbox, I'd urge you, Niall, to just be a bit more careful with how you come across sometimes. What I view as enthusiasm for code and love for talking about code and coding, does seems to comes across less well with others. E.g. are you offending others by appearing to speak for them or implicitly denigrating their efforts by highlighting your own? [I am sure this sounds like you are having your hard work such as the "best practices handbook" thrown back in your face, but honestly I am only trying to improve the environment in which any further review might take place]
I do take exception with negativity for negativity's sake true. I also believe that collectively acting as if developing Boost libraries is effortless and does not involve major sacrifices is the Ayn Rand-ian hero taken too far. If you start from gratitude when criticising, you'll get nothing but positivity in return from me. All this said, I recognise I have been unusually tetchy since February this year when this uber work pace began, and I acknowledge I could have behaved a lot better on many occasions, particularly with regard to unenforced poor judgement. The good news is in just three weeks from now this burst of work is over, and I will be returning to my standard 50 hour week for the foreseeable future which includes most of 2016. I already have a fitness and physiotherapy schedule planned for as soon as I return from CppCon as I have lost a lot of fitness and gained a fair bit of weight since Feburary. I'm very much looking forward to that.
Nice job with AFIO!
Thanks Pete. Much appreciated. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/