Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Henrik Sundberg (storangen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 08:07:24

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:01 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Sundberg" <storangen_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM, vicente.botet
>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> The Daniel proposal implies some changes in the writing rights of the authors. I prefer to let this point out of these guidelines. Of course I think that this is a good idea.
>>
>> I think this is absolutely wrong. The authors are the experts and they
>> do all work. You should never try to make them inferior. Do not handle
>> quality in Boost as in old fashioned handling of "Quality" (which
>> *not* is the same as product/code quality) in big companies. There is
>> a release management in Boost. The release manager can choose not to
>> accept something in the release if something is considered to be too
>> bad.
>
> I have never said the contrary.

I'm sorry.
I thought a restriction was meant with "changes in the writing rights
of the authors". And I thought "Of course I think that this is a good
idea" referred to that restriction.

I agree with you to place such rules outside of the maintenance
guidelines. But I think that all author restrictions will make fewer
people interested in contributing to Boost. Subversion makes it fairly
simple to revert changes. Fix problems when they have occurred
instead.

Back to what I misunderstood; what does "that" refer to in "Of course
I think that this is a good idea"?

/$