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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-09 05:34:41

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Stephen Kelly
> Sent: 08 January 2015 19:36
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent
problems for
> multiple years
> 
> 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. 

Boost under SVN used to allow all library authors to update any library - but
most people were too polite to do this much, and certainly not without
consultation.

> The same is not true of Boost, and it is designed that way.

I disagreed with this when Boost GIT was set up.  I'd like it changed to
re-allow all library authors access to all other libraries.

> You write below it is a good thing. I don't agree. I think there's a better
middle
> ground to arrive at.

Yes - but people need to continue to be 'polite' and mindful of the possible
consequences to other users, especially in a library like Boost.Test that has
very many users.

As Robert Ramey explains in more detail.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]