On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:

At Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:09:08 -0800,

Marshall Clow wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Geoffrey Romer wrote:
> >
> > I'm responsible for maintaining the local Boost install for a
> > large group of developers, and I find myself spending an
> > inordinate amount of time reapplying our local patches for Boost
> > bugs every time a new version comes out, seemingly with no end in
> > sight. One obvious example is
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3645: the report is clear
> > and specific, documents a real bug, and provides a trivial patch
> > which completely resolves the issue. It's everything one could
> > possibly want in a bug report, and it has been utterly ignored for
> > over a year.
>
> If Dave has no objection, I will be happy to take care of this.

I have none.

> > In my experience this has been the rule rather than the exception;
> > other examples that I've been personally acquainted with include
> > http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/06/153214.php,
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4918, and
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4919. In every case the
> > reporters have done everything they could to provide a useful bug
> > report, up to and including providing patches, but have been met
> > with profound silence.
>
> Same for 4918; I can apply this if it's ok with Jeremy.
> As for 4919, I see that the patch is not a complete fix; I'll have to look into it some more.
>
> Dave? Jeremy?

Marshall, as far as I'm concerned you have earned the right to apply
completely-obvious fixes to stagnant tickets without asking
permission, and if I were in your shoes I wouldn't hesitate no matter
who the putatively responsible maintainer is.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com