Re: [boost] Boost, Decoupled and Accelerated

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost, Decoupled and Accelerated
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-18 11:29:32

Roland Bock wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:46:35 +0100,
>> Roland Bock wrote:
>>> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing 
>>> bug tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without 
>>> compromising the dramatics for BoostCon :-)
>>>
>>> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
>>
>> A very good question.  The most obvious thing is that projects could
>> all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
>> bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
>> current stagnation of the Trac development effort.
>>
> 
> Hmm. At this point, what sounded cool earlier, now becomes a bit 
> frightening. Where do you intend the decentralization to stop?
> 
> If we are going to follow that path, the next logical step would be that 
> each project could have its own mailing list (which some of them have 
> anyway).
> 
> I must admit, I wouldn't be much of a fan of that. I am on far too many 
> mailing lists already. And the central mailing list is nice because so 
> many stimulating ideas are passing through. Also, sometimes I wonder: is 
> there a boost library that could help me with problem XY? I send a 
> question to the central list and usually get an answer, soon. Without a 
> central list, where would I send such a question?

As an example, at OSGeo Foundation (http://osgeo.org), there number of 
project and quite a number of mailing lists (http://lists.osgeo.org).
There is also one general list called OSGeo Discuss and people
post there question "What lib/tool can solve problem X?".
I'd say, it works and having project-specific lists works well
as they are kept focused on particular problem.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net