Apologies for the delay on sending this until after CppCon. The cause is 
that one of the students did not perform much work during the second half, 
and neither myself nor his mentor nor Bryce had the spare time to properly 
deal with that situation until after CppCon, so I kicked the can down the 
road by giving him an extension. Now we have some free time back we'll get 
on with doing something, specifically that I have asked Bryce to 
impartially review the student's work and compare that to the work plan 
outlined at the beginning.

That leaves the reports for the other two students who have been kept 
waiting for their final payment for a month longer than they should.



*Boost.Compute, Jakub Szuppe*

Detailed 
report: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_z9lkDiIVBJ-a-oc-po2QrkNjf4Gf-Eb9lDb15gr7m8/edit?usp=sharing

Mentor is very pleased with the work done this summer.



Boost.Http, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira

>    - Mini parser were introduced. They're stateless and simplify the code.
>    They can also be used independently in case you don't need a full 
parser.
>    - Real time was spent testing the abstractions to prevent errors. Good
>    test cases, bad test cases, lots of them, new tests that would simulate
>    network fragmented bytes (one of the test binaries was starting to get 
more
>    than 30 minutes to compile under GCC Debug and I had to split it into
>    smaller tests), enabling the sanitizer tests. Still need to add fuzz
>    testing, but this will be to the future.
>    - I've integrated the parser into Boost.Http message framework (which
>    immediately benefited the parser with already existing tests) and Tufão
>    project (an active and not new project which already has some users and
>    became beta testers for us in the wild).
>    - Client parser was finished.
>    - Commits to make the parser more liberal in respect with what it
>    accepts (the robustness principle).
>    - Some refactors.

Mentor reports that student initially went down route which was unwise and 
disregarded mentor's advice. This caused some frustration for the mentor. 
However, a while in student realised why mentor's advice was correct and he 
replaced earlier route with correct route. This introduced a fair bit of 
delay and caused original work plan to be missed by a fair chunk, however 
when evaluating the whole summer's improvement mentor is pleased with the 
overall outcome and recommends a pass.

I personally would like to add that I've been watching this project for 
some years and the student consistently works hard over the past three 
years I've been watching. I have generally been impressed. Ignoring advice 
from one's elders and realising the consequences is an important part of 
the development of any engineer, especially as occasionally the student is 
right and the elders are wrong. Most of the time, of course, it's the other 
way round, but that's one of the most valuable parts of a mentor-mentee 
relationship, and the best lessons you learn are generally from your 
mistakes.


I would ask the steering committee to release the final payment for the 
above students and mentor Kyle (Bjorn isn't accepting his payment). They've 
waited long enough.

Niall

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Boost Steering Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to boost-steering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to