Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Transfer of Maintenance Rights
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-28 13:55:34

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Transfer of Maintenance Rights

> vicente.botet wrote:
>> From: "Jeremiah Willcock" <jewillco_at_[hidden]>
>> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>> >> Hmmm, how about the phrase, "active bugs," like the following?
>> >
>> > That term is fine; do you want any sort of explicit
>> > definition of what bugs count as active?
>> I think that the tickets we are interested are the tickets
>> that are on the hands of the maintainer. We could accept a
>> different delay depending on the ticket severity, on whether
>> it is a feature request, ...
> I don't quite agree. If a maintainer doesn't even examine new tickets, then that's a problem, so the tickets just issued or being updated by requesters are also important.

Just consider tha th new tickets associated to a component/library are on the hands of the library maintainer.

>As to whether there should be a different delay allowed based upon severity, feature request, etc., I certainly didn't want to get into that level of detail.

I understand why you want to avoid the detail. But without this level detail we are unable to state when a library is unmaintained. Or, are we?

>Instead, I was looking to keep the phrasing sufficiently vague to leave wiggle room based upon community perception and maintainer response when the community complains.

I see, but I think that we need however to set some high limits.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at