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: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-17 19:28:50

I've been reading this thread today and I've found it adding more amusement to the Boost.Test Saga (perhaps I should call it a soap opera instead, but I just flew on Icelandair and they call First Class, Saga Class, so I figure Saga is better in that light).

Boost.Test hasn't released an update since 2012 and before that single change of a few lines, it hasn't seen an update since 2010.

Anecdotally, last year, I became part of the Boost Community Maintenance Team and decided to spend some free time fixing issues in dynamic_bitset. I learned how to use trac, got setup and took patches from tickets, added tests and fixed them on both develop and master and got them into 1.56. And all while boost was going through the pain of migrating to git. And since then, I've had less free time, but it seems like dynamic_bitset has gotten some love from other kind folks with free time. I'd consider that a good example of how the CMT has helped boost improve over the last year or so.

The amusement I alluded to above is mostly due to the fact that for the last five or more years, I'd consider Boost.Test to be the perfect example of how Boost's maintainer policy breaks down and as a result, provides a disservice to it's users. And I suppose it's only amusing to me since I have a perverse sense of humor and I get to watch it from the outside without much at stake. However, I imagine that while some people (like me) may think that this situation is amusing, there are probably lots of other people reporting bugs and seeing them not get fixed for years, even if they are small issues.

So, if it is possible for someone like me to generate good will for both a library like dynamic_bitset and the CMT process all at the same time by resolving a few tickets, why is it that the potential good will towards users of Boost.Test is not worth the relatively small effort required to push at least a single, one line change? If there had been at least one change in the last few releases, I'd be significantly less amused, cause there would be progress.

I for one am looking forward to at least one more year of amusement out of the Boost.Test Saga, cause if some users can't get their bug fixes in and the maintainer can't get replaced by someone more effective and if the library can't be maintained by the CMT, then at least I can laugh about the entire thing for another year.