Subject: Re: [boost] Maintenance suspended
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-10 12:42:01
[sent from tiny mobile device]
On Jul 9, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]>
> Maybe there should be two types of maintainers: there could be the
> usual, actively maintained libraries and a new type of "passively"
> maintained library. A passively maintained library could be modified
> without the maintainers direct evolvement.
Technically speaking we can already do that, but it isn't neighborly.
> But of course, the
> maintainer would hold a veto prerogative over any change. So, when
> someone submits a patch for a bug or feature request for a passively
> maintained library,
> 1) if people on the list are interested and agree, then the patch can
> be applied;
> 2) if there is a dispute, it can be brought to the attention of the
> passive maintainer for resolution;
> 3) the passive maintainer can always veto.
> This would only work when users/boosters take the initiative to learn
> the code and submit a patch, but that's not unusual. Giving library
> authors an opportunity to declare their intent to become passive
> maintainers could be a good thing.
I love it. +1 from me
> For one, this would allow authors
> of mature libraries to transition openly to other projects rather than
> simply disappearing. Not everyone has the courage to recognize when
> their circumstance are changing, as you did Dave. Thanks for taking
> the lead on this!
> Daniel Walker
> And also thanks for retracting your suspension! Personally, I have
> learned so much from your work with boost over the years. The more
> active you are, the better off all the rest of us are!
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk