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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 13:58:29

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Daniel Walker
<daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
<snip>
> But I don't know. Here's another idea. Rather than trying to make the
> analogy between boost and a single open source project, perhaps the
> analogy should be between boost and a single distributer of multiple
> open source projects, for example, Debain or Fedora. Debian, for
> example, has three tiers of "release": testing, stable, and unstable -
> everyone's favorite. ;) I'm not sure what quality control procedures
> they have, but maybe that's also a good place to look for ideas.

I was just sitting here thinking that benevolent "dictator" is really
not an apt term for what I'm talking about. I'm really talking about
some sort of public servants who would represent the interests of the
community of boosters. These benevolent representatives would perform
the service of insuring the community's votes are adhered to from one
release to the next by judiciously exercising the power of write
permission for unit tests on svn. We could call them the "quality
congress." ;) Or maybe committee is a better word. Or maybe we could
just make this a function of the release manager, if he isn't already
overburdened. Anyway, I guess you all get the idea.

Daniel Walker