Re: Strategy

> 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
Received on Mon Sep 22 2008 - 01:45:07 MDT