Re: [boost] Re: Should boost::any::any() be made explicit?

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 09:16:31

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Should boost::any::any() be made explicit?

> On Tuesday 30 April 2002 08:59 pm, you wrote:
> > I don't think we have any formal notion of a library maintainer at
> > Boost. Perhaps we should? Maybe it we should label libraries "stable but
> > unmaintained" if their maintainers become unresponsive? Maybe
> > unmaintained libraries should be "up for maintenance grabs" after a
> > certain amount of time has passed?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Dave
>
> I think this is a good idea. If nothing else, it gives users some
direction
> when asking for bug fixes/features. It can be quite disappointing when
your
> bug reports are redirected to /dev/null, and Boost would serve its users
well
> by avoiding that.
>
> Doug

Not a bad idea at all, but I'd suggest that each library also have 2 (or
more) "official maintainers".  This will reduce the chance of a library
"losing direction" if one of the maintainers has to take a temporary, but
lengthy, hiatus.

Bill Kempf