Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 22:37:53

On 3/24/2010 9:01 PM, John Phillips wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Edward Diener
>> <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> That's why I am suggesting that Boost create some sort of policy so that
>>> maintenance of an actively used Boost library be transferred to others
>>> whenever the original library author(s) no longer wish to maintain the
>>> library.
>>
>> Why do we need an official policy if someone has to volunteer anyway?
>> It's not like there's an army of volunteers and we have to be careful
>> to pick the right candidate. :)
>>
>> Emil Dotchevski
>> Reverge Studios, Inc.
>> http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
>
> Emil,
>
> I think where we need to consider an official policy is on the other
> end. In the current structure of Boost, the author of the library has
> control of it unless they explicitly cede that control. So, if a
> developer disappears, no one feels they have the right to mess with the
> library.
>
> We need to change the expectations on that count. So, developers
> submitting libraries to Boost do so with the understanding that a
> substantial period of inactivity while there are issues that need to be
> addressed means that someone else is allowed (and expected) to step in
> and become the prime maintainer. Inaction cedes control by default.

I agree with this as a general point and I think that if there is any 
dismay by users of Boost libraries it is because there is a feeling with 
certain libraries that the original developer is no longer around to 
deal with issues and nobody else has been empowered to take over. So if 
there are problems when dealing with such a Boost library the end-user 
may feel that he is too much on his own to solve them, or to figure out 
how to effectively do certain things with the library which the 
documentation does not make clear enough.

Other than that, from this user's viewpoint, I can not understand 
programming groups which do not give the C++ developer the right to use 
Boost libraries as he deems fit. The libraries are of such high quality, 
and the documentation is generally good enough, that any really 
competent C++ programmer can save enormous amounts of time and write 
much more elegant and understandable code using Boost libraries than 
otherwise.