Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-01 09:12:57
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 1/1/2011 4:20 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>> Well, there's the rub.
>> Take what I said in the context of collaborative development instead
>> of the current way of getting libraries into Boost. My issue with the
>> status quo is that the barrier to entry for a library (and thus a
>> contributor) is really high especially because of this practice of not
>> letting others pitch into the work that goes into writing a library.
>> This process is nothing like the status quo, and is actually a more
>> encouraging model that allows people to get involved with minimal
>> effort required.
> You can not fail to understand that your idea of collaborative development
> of your own library is not everybody's way of working. Do not try to force
> that idea on everybody else.
Right, so what is the other idea of collaborative development?
Notice that in the example process I posted, there was the chance for
me to actually say "no, I don't like this patch". Also, under the same
example process you can also do the "status quo" process, just don't
announce your library for inclusion for Boost until you feel it's
ready and don't accept patches once you've done the announcement. That
example process allows for the status quo process *and* a more
collaborative process to happen.
But what's happening at the moment is that people who *like* the
collaborative process *aren't* supported explicitly by the current
Boost process. This means what's happening is, the current Boost
process is imposing upon me the way to develop a library that I want
to develop and am already developing.
Note that the goal is to lower the barrier to entry, in which the
current process introduces a lot of (barriers).
I'm not about to impose anything on anybody -- I was under the
impression that decisions like these would be a community matter. In
that case, I don't see why I shouldn't try to ask everybody else to
change the way they do things because, well, the current process is
asking me to change the way *I* do things. ;)
-- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk