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 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
>> | 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
>> | 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.
>> | 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
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
btw. Having the gmane list<->newsgroup as a read-only gateway does not
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk