Re: [boost] [accumulators] maintainer needed

Subject: Re: [boost] [accumulators] maintainer needed
From: Francesco Basile (fbasile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-27 06:17:05

Erich, I both have an interest Boost.Accumulator and I have a 
mathematical-physics background. I'm not an expert in meta-programming, 
but, thanks to your help offer, it should not be a problem.
Francesco

On 04/12/2011 07:36 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> I confess I haven't given this library the attention it needs. It's due
> to the fact that I have many competing demands for my time, and also
> because I'm not actually a statistician -- Matthias Troyer did that
> part, but I know he's busy, too -- so I don't really feel qualified to
> make certain changes. This is an uncomfortable position to be in, so I
> figured I'd ask for help. So, is there anybody with a mathematical bent
> and an interest in Boost.Accumulators who would like to help out with
> the backlog of bugs and patches to this library? I would stay on as
> assistant maintainer to help with the tricky meta-programming.
>
> Gaetano, see below.
>
> On 4/10/2011 10:48 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>> On 27/07/2010 15:04, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2010 7:08 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/2010 08:52 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>>> In this case, you would open a feature request on svn.boost.org ("New
>>>>> Ticket"), assign to me, and attach your patch. If it looks good, I'll
>>>>> merge it. Your patch should have docs and tests. Don't worry about
>>>>> formatting the docs. I can do that. I wouldn't ask you to set up the
>>>>> doc
>>>>> build chain; it's a headache.
>>>>
>>>> Done.
>>>
>>> (For those playing along at home, the ticket is here:
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4471)
>>>
>>> Thanks. This needs documentation, though. Like I said, I don't care
>>> about formatting, just tell what what text you'd like to see inserted
>>> where in the docs and I'll do it.
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I see the ticket for the kahan accumulator:
>>
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4471
>>
>> is still "open", do you need something else to be done?
>
> I don't think you ever responded to my request to add the needed docs to
> the patch, did you?
>