[boost] [Bug Sprint] Policy on MIA maintainers

Subject: [boost] [Bug Sprint] Policy on MIA maintainers
From: Jim Bell (Jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-29 08:32:10

(Was "Re: [boost] [Bug Sprint] The Boost bug sprint has begun!")

On 1:59 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Jim Bell <Jim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 1:59 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Vicente Botet wrote:
>>>> There are 99 Patches now, this is a good starting point. It would be great
>>>> if the authors/maintainers that want to participate to this Bug Sprint could
>>>> check if the Patches are correct or not, and include them in trunk or change
>>>> to BUG or Feature Request otherwise.
>>> [...]
>> But what do we do for authors/maintainers NOT participating?
>>
> Good question.
>
> I think for the meantime the best we can do is keep sending in patches
> and bugging the maintainers to either look at the patches. Until we
> get to a consensus on how to deal with inactive maintainers, I guess
> we can only play by the same rules in the meantime.

I think now's the time to get that consensus, or start the process.
(And, of course, I'm thinking about Boost.Guild.)

I'd like someone to walk through a case study right here on the list.
(Or a few people!)

Pick an un(der)-maintained library. (Most open patches/tickets?) Assume
you're not an expert on that library.

Pick one of the submitted patches at random:

Now review it yourself:
* Would you incorporate it?
* What's your level of confidence?
* Should the trunk regression tests get a shot at it?

How much time did you spend reaching your conclusions?

> If someone is willing to step up as a maintainer of a library please
> don't hesitate to express your interest to the maintainer of the
> library you wish to maintain. Getting a maintainer's nod should be
> alright as a go-ahead for the SVN administrators to give commit access
> to whoever volunteers that the original maintainer "anoints".
>
> Aside from that, really all we can do is look at issues that seem to
> have been neglected, and just keep at it until either:
>
> 1. The maintainers grant commit access to those who really want to
> contribute and co-maintain the library, or...
> 2. The maintainers actually apply the patches and close the issues.
>
> Either way we'll get the job done IMO. :)

If a maintainer is MIA, I say "we" apply the patches. One or more people
look at a patch, mark the ticket as recommended, and/or put it on the
list of patches for someone with SVN permissions to apply. Or mark it as
NOT recommended, and close the ticket.