Adar Dembo has posted comments on this change.

Change subject: Implement kudu::optional replacement for boost::optional
......................................................................


Patch Set 1:

> I don't see the purpose of taking on this extra code. Code's a
 > liability, not an asset, and all that.

This is meant to completely replace our usage of boost::optional so it should 
be net zero in terms of new code used vs. old code dropped, or even net 
negative given that I don't think Mike reimplemented all of boost::optional. 
Besides, you've been open to incorporating Chromium code in the past to replace 
boost usage (e.g. Chromium callback/bind). Is this terribly different?

I think there are reasonable counter-arguments to be made (e.g. boost::optional 
was probably written/tested by people with deeper C++ knowledge than 
ourselves), but I don't think this one is that convincing.

-- 
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/3512
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ib80c35cc9a4712572f85eeb7717e17869cd5e081
Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Owner: Mike Percy <mpe...@apache.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <a...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Dan Burkert <d...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins
Gerrit-Reviewer: Todd Lipcon <t...@apache.org>
Gerrit-HasComments: No

Reply via email to