From: Lars Gullik Bjønnes (larsbj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 08:38:31
>> From: larsbj_at_[hidden] [mailto:larsbj_at_[hidden]]
>> This is one of the patches I mentioned in a thread ealier that does
>> not fit with one single library, but rather to _all_ libraries that
>> use assert on pointers.
| So, when a topic concerns existing and future libraries, a good idea is to
| make that clear both in the topic and in the body text. That way, the issue
| can be discussed on the list.
Ok... set up a list of approved subject tokens that will trigger boost
maintainers and devlopers into activity then...
| Applying a Boost-wide patch is not taken
| lightly, nor should it be. Good suggestions tend to be treated favorably
| here, though.
>> IMHO this also shows the problem with "my lib
>> and his lib", and cross lib maintenance.
>> You really need some Janitor-Wizard.
| That would be me, although the title is probably in the eye of the beholder
| :-). However, applying patches or otherwise meddling with libraries that are
| already maintained is not only rude, it's also a great maintenance risk, and
| exactly the opposite of how we do things at Boost. Good or bad? Well, the
| track record so far seems to indicate the former.
To have this is a general rule is pretty cumbersome...
this is assert thing is one that shouldn't need to involve
lib-mainainters, as would other _simple_ stuff for removal of