Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 06:31:53
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Joel de Guzman
> On 1/31/2011 6:06 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM, John Maddock<boost.regex_at_[hidden]>
>> Â wrote:
>>> I think the thing is this: most folks around here just don't really care
>>> about tools - they really don't - they just want to "get stuff done".
>> I thought because people want to get stuff done that they would care
>> about the tools they use and whether they're using the right tool or
>> whether the tools are making them effective.
> Pardon me, Dean, but...
> I'm with John here. And I can say this: we, the top commiters have no
> complaints about the tools. We will use whatever tools are available.
> (at least I speak for Hartmut, John, Volodya and I; but I have a strong
> feeling that Steven and Daniel agree too).
Ok. Maybe I should have said "as effective as you can be". ;)
> Again, let me emphasize this: (now I am quoting the positive version):
> Â A Good Craftsman Never Blames His Tools
> And I think what Volodya meant is that more than anyone else, it is
> us who are in the position to determine if we are using the right tool
> or whether the tools are making us effective. And... hmmm, I think
> we are effective ;-)
Question though is do you think you and a lot more others who want to
contribute can be more effective with a different tool? I can
understand that sometimes there's no point in asking the question when
you don't see a problem. But for me personally who would want to be
able to be as contributory to the project as you guys, I do think
there's a problem -- especially with scaling the effort.
If everyone else was in agreement that Boost is fine as it is now and
that there wasn't a want to grow the contributor base and the
community around the project, then I guess it is pointless because the
top contributors are happy the way it is.
Although of course, us contributor wannabe's who want to be able to
reach the same level as you guys would really want to be able to do it
without causing too much trouble for either you guys or ourselves --
hence the question on the current process.
So if you guys think the tools and process are fine as they are now in
allowing the project to scale to accommodate more contributors, then I
just have to disagree from a wannabe perspective from now on... until
maybe the next discussion on the matter comes up again. :P
Thanks and I HTH.
-- 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