Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-08 14:35:47

Robert Ramey wrote:

> Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
>> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> 
>>> a situation where a lone worker was solely controlling a key library
>>> used by almost all others.
>> 
>> Isn't that exactly how boost is designed to work?
> 
> I'm not sure how was boost was designed - or evolved ( I suppose it
> depends
> upon one's religion). 

The most stark difference between Boost and KDE is that a KDE contributor 
can push to all KDE repositories. The same is not true of Boost, and it is 
designed that way. You write below it is a good thing. I don't agree. I 
think there's a better middle ground to arrive at.

That is also a contributor to why there are so many unmaintained libraries 
in Boost. Far more libraries than are listed as the responsibility of the 
CMT are actually unmaintained in reality - the dead pull requests and 
desperate mails like

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/256063
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/256571

show that. 

You might want to make a list of what is actually maintained instead and 
then decide if you want to do anything about that.

> It promotes conceptual integrity and
> makes
> for smaller, decoupled libraries.  

Decoupled? Erm, WAT?

That is definitely, simply, not a true description of Boost for many many 
reasons.

Check your illusions :).

> One thing we do is that once a library
> is
> accepted, it shuts the door to anyone proposing alternatives. 

There is definitely no consensus on this

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/255318/focus=255359

Another instance showing that there isn't generally cohesive opinion in 
Boost. Maybe another effect of the lone-wolf design.

> If we had statistics on library usage, we could drop accepted
> libraries from the "standard" distribution when they fall out of favor.

There are so many strong opinions opposed to that, you'd have to form 
something of a community based on consensus before actually doing it.

Thanks,

Steve.