Re: [boost] Unmaintained libraries (Was: 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries)

Subject: Re: [boost] Unmaintained libraries (Was: 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries)
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 18:10:49

Sounds good.  Nice and loose.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Vladimir Prus
<vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>
>> he license is one thing and even the "Library Maintainer's Rights and
>> Responsibilities" which Steve Watanabe links to in another post is
>> another, but unless someone with authority decides that library X, being
>> ignored by the maintainer, needs to be taken over by another who is
>> amenable to fixes and changes, it is not going to happen. The main
>> reason is somewhat psychological. If an end-user complains that
>> maintainer X is not responding to requests about library X it will be
>> seen as a derogatory put down of maintainer X. If a boost developer
>> complains it may also be seen as a form of competitive envy. Despite
>> your objection to Boost "leaders" someone has to take the bit between
>> the teeth in order to effect change.
>
> I think you propose not the best way to approach the problem of abandoned libraries.
> Suppose there's a formal procedure of taking over. Like, an email is posted saying:
>
>        Library X is unmaintained. If you would like to take maintenance over,
>          and fix the 50 bugs currently filed against it, and also fix all new
>          bugs, step forward.
>
> Do you expect many people will volunteer? On the other hand, if fixing a bug in
> library X does *not* require any formal process and takes 5 minutes, it's much
> more likely that bugs will be fixed. I think we need to have an official
> "it's ok to apply patches everywhere" policy more than anything else.
>
> - Volodya
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>