Boost logo

Boost :

From: Lars Gullik Bjønnes (larsbj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-02 08:07:52

"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> > all developers just sit
>> > on their own turf (read: library) and does not bother to look at
>> > others.
| It's not true. As a rule we use one-another's libraries and when they break
| we try to fix them.

The context is what happens when a non-booster sends
question/patches/comments to a library that are not yours.

| That's entirely appropriate. I don't want someone patching my library for
| me unless it's an emergency and I've become completely unreachable. They'll
| probably get it wrong. Likewise, I'd much rather wait until the situation
| is intolerable than introduce a bug in someone else's code.

So the the silence is appropriate?
btw. this is also what I regard as one of the current problems with
boost: it is "my" and "their" code.
Sure I am all for the careful introduction of patches and new code, it
is the current practice that only the library owner should answer that
I after.

I do not even need to get my patches put into boost (we have lived
with small stuff you do not want in boost for a long time), I only
want some reaction.

>> | I could also say "it would be a lot better if the community at large
| was
>> | making a bigger contribution". We hard-cores are busy people.
>> I cannot do much more than send patches and test...
| That's always appreciated. Which libraries have you sent patches for other
| than regex?

limit, thread, lwm ... compile warnings etc.
(what is this? some kind of a test?)

>> >> Even if this sounds a bit negative, I am really grateful for the time
>> >> and effort the boosters put into this.
>> >
>> | Your gratefulness is appreciated, but I would much prefer you would ask
>> | yourself what you can do to make a difference. Perhaps you and Bjorn
| can
>> | find a way to reduce response times...
>> You mean apart from testing and using boost all the time and sending
>> patches when I discover I can fix a problem myself?
>> So IMHO I am already trying to make a difference.
| Try asking yourself how you could make a difference in the responsiveness
| to patch postings.

Yes, how?

>> | BTW, other projects use the (IMO lousy but perhaps better than nothing)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> | SourceForge patch tracker; it's taken for granted that patches will be
>> | forgotten unless they're in the tracker.
>> Other projects or Boost?
| How could I possibly make it clearer?

You your statement is then that "Perhaps Boost should use the SF patch

>> (if boost... it has never been mentioned on this list before...)
>> Currently the number of maintence patches to boost libraries is very
>> low, so imho they are better handled on this list.
| Do we really have a big problem with responsiveness to these
| patches?

No but it is annoying....
Actually it seems that the problem is almost more present for the
small obvious patches than larger ones.

f.ex. adding cpu defines to detail/limits.hpp

| How long have you had to wait, how many times?

Do I count? (no)
For me to even begin feeling this as a problem it must have happened a
few times...

btw. Having the gmane list<->newsgroup as a read-only gateway does not


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at