Re: Strategy

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 <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 - 02:36:16 MDT