Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-21 00:05:39

On 21/08/2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > There also doesn't seem to be anyone willing to maintain the extra
> > branches or point releases. And some boost developers don't seem very
> > keen on working with multiple branches. If we had a culture of shared
> > code ownership, we might be able to make up for that.
> >
> What do you mean by "culture of shared code ownership"?

In general (this is a gross generalisation, there are plenty of
exceptions) a library is maintained by one or two people and if there
is a problem it's up to them to solve it. In a culture of shared
ownership (I'm already embarrassed about using that phrase) people
would be feel more responsibility for other's people libraries.
Because most tasks are up to the individual library maintainers we can
only do what they are willing to do. We have good unit tests, because
maintainers are willing to write them. But individual developers don't
seem willing to maintain multiple branches - which puts the burden
onto the people who are (i.e. Beman). I don't want to put down
anyone's contribution. I'm just trying to explain the problems that I
see with maintaining multiple branches.

Some of the suggestions that have been made (such as more modular
testing and better merge tracking in Subversion 1.5) might improve the
situation considerably.


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