Re: Strategy

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:36 +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 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.

If "this stuff" is WordList, then "put this stuff on hold" is my
suggestion as well.

If "this stuff" is String, then I think the basic design choices can be
discussed now, but waiting is even better for me, so I am happy to
follow your suggestion :-).

If "this stuff" is how we improve "teamwork", then I am happy to
continue any _constructive_ discussions since releasing 3.1 can benefit
from teamwork as well.

> We can sort this stuff out in a short period of time if its our only focus.

The only focus? You must be dreaming :-).

Alex.

> 2008/9/22 Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
> >> 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 - 03:28:14 MDT