Put this stuff on hold, get Squid-3.1 out of the way, sort out the issues surrounding that before you start throwing more code into Squid-3 trunk, and -then- have this discussion.
We can sort this stuff out in a short period of time if its our only focus. Adrian 2008/9/22 Amos Jeffries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 23:36 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> >>> > * Look for simpler warts with localized impact. We have plenty of them >>> > and your energy would be well spent there. If you have a choice, do >>> not >>> > try to improve something as fundamental and as critical as String. >>> > Localized single-use code should receive a lot less scrutiny than >>> > fundamental classes. >>> > >>> >>> Agreed, but that said. If you kinkie, picking oe of the hard ones causes >>> a thorough discussion, as String has, and comes up with a good API. That >>> not just a step in the rght direction but a giant leap. And worth doing >>> if you can spare the time (months in some cases). >>> The follow on effects will be better and easier code in other areas >>> depending on it. >> >> Amos, >> >> I think the above work-long-enough-and-you-will-make-it analysis and >> a few other related comments do not account for one important factor: >> cost (and the limited resources this project has). Please compare the >> following estimates (all numbers are very approximate, of course): >> >> Kinkie's time to draft a String class: 2 weeks >> Kinkie's time to fix the String class: 6 weeks >> Reviewers' time to find bugs and >> convince Kinkie that they are bugs: 2 weeks >> Total: 10 weeks >> >> Reviewer's time to write a String class: 3 weeks >> Total: 3 weeks >> > > Which shows that if Kinkie wants to work on it, he is out 8 weeks, and the > reviewers gain 1 week themselves. So I stand by, if he feels strongly > enough to do it. > >> If you add to the above that one reviewer cannot review and work on >> something else at the same time, the waste goes well above 200%. > > Which is wrong. We can review one thing and work on another project. > >> >> Compare the above with a regular project that does not require writing >> complex or fundamental classes (again, numbers are approximate): >> >> Kinkie's time to complete a regular project: 1 week >> Reviewer's time to complete a regular project: 1 week > > After which both face the hard project again. Which remains hard and could > have cut off 5 days of the regular project. > >> >> If we want Squid code to continue to be a playground for half-finished >> code and ideas, then we should abandon the review process. Let's just >> commit everything that compiles and that the committer is happy with. > > I assume you are being sarcastic. > >> Otherwise, let's do our best to find a project for everyone, without >> sacrificing the quality of the output or wasting resources. For example, >> if a person wants String to implement his pet project, but cannot make a >> good String, it may be possible to trade String implementation for a few >> other pet projects that the person can do. > > Then that trade needs to be discussed with the person before they start. > I get the idea you are trying to manage this FOSS like you would a company > project. That approach has been tried and failed miserably in FOSS. > >> This will not be smooth and >> easy, but it is often doable because most of us share the goal of making >> the best open source proxy. >> >>> > * When assessing the impact of your changes, do not just compare the >>> old >>> > code with the one submitted for review. Consider how your classes >>> stand >>> > on their own and how they _will_ be used. Providing a poor but >>> > easier-to-abuse interface is often a bad idea even if that interface >>> is, >>> > in some aspects, better than the old hard-to-use one. >>> > >>> >> Noone else is tackling the issues that I'm working on. Should they be >>> >> left alone? Or should I aim for the "perfect" solution each time? >>> >>> Perfect varies, and will change. As the baseline 'worst' code in Squid >>> improves. The perfect API this year may need changing later. Aim for the >>> best you can find to do, and see if its good enough for inclusion. >> >> Right. The problems come when it is not good enough, and you cannot fix >> it on your own. I do not know how to avoid these ugly situations. > > Teamwork. Which I thought we were starting to get in the String API after > earlier attempts at solo by whoever wrote SquidString and myself on the > BetterString mk1, mk2, mk3. > > I doubt any of us could do a good job of something so deep without help. > Even you needed Henrik to review and find issues with AsyncCalls, maybe > others I don't know about before that. > > The fact remains these things NEED someone to kick us into a team and work > on it. > >> >>> for example, Alex had no issues with wordlist when it first came out. >> >> This was my first review of the proposed class, but I doubt it would >> have changed if I reviewed it earlier. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Alex. >> > > Amos > > >
