Re: [boost] [Bug Sprint] Final report for the (late 2010) Bug Sprint

Subject: Re: [boost] [Bug Sprint] Final report for the (late 2010) Bug Sprint
From: Jim Bell (Jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-07 12:08:38

On 1:59 PM, KTC wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 02:36, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Eric Niebler<eric_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2010 9:22 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:
>>>> So - what did people think went well during the bug sprint?
>>>> What went poorly?
>>>> What can we do better next time (assuming that there is a next time)?
>>>
>>> I think it proves that people are too busy around the holidays for a
>>> bug
>>> sprint.
>>>
>>
>> That, and/or there aren't enough people willing to look at issues
>> and/or contribute patches to Boost.
>
> 1. There were only a limited number of library author taking part.
>
> 2. Non-library authors don't have trunk commit access. Now, the
> chances are most of the bugs / trac tickets are with libraries where
> the author isn't taking part. Now, the culture of boost discourage any
> commit to libraries not "owned" by oneself. Hence we have a result
> where there's people willing to make patches or whatever, attach it to
> trac, and then nothing happens. It's not very encouraging to see
> patches you've done during the last bug sprint 6 months ago to still
> be sitting in trac unapplied.

+1

I think the bug sprint emphasizes the need for Boost.Guild, and shows
it's biggest risk of failure.

We need a group of people willing to commit changes to various
libraries. Otherwise patches languish in trac. (Or the trunk.)

Bugging maintainers just doesn't work. There's been discussion about
criteria for becoming a maintainer. What about criteria for staying one?

Boostpro: you guys said you were willing to commit resources... what
about it? I think this is where resources are most needed.