Re: [boost] logging

Subject: Re: [boost] logging
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-15 15:46:17

On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Jeff Graham wrote:
>>> So after 16 months and 2 releases, what is the plan?
>> So, do you have another logging library to propose to Boost?
> 
> That is a joke I am certain. And since better people than me have
> written and stopped working on a boost logging library due to the simple
> fact that one has ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED instead, I can laugh at the
> joke.

A joke, but the point being, if you aren't putting in the effort yourself, what right do you really have to complain about other volunteers' efforts?

> That is
> reasonable, though as others have articulated I too would question the
> wisdom of holding up a very useful library for TWO YEARS because you
> know that you will need to refactor some of it in the future. This is
> the larger question.

Two other choices:
- accept an inferior implementation permanently
- break the API after a year or so

> I think waiting 16 months is a boat load of patience whether it is in
> doggie or computer years.

True.

> And of course with this model of contribution there should be little
> expectation even after a contributor has submitted a library and it has
> been approved and others have stopped working on similar libraries
> because of that fact?

There is nothing stopping someone else from submitting their own library if it really seems this one has died.  Or even if it hasn't.  (Sounds like a lot of people would prefer a more lightweight solution.)

I hope that Andrey speaks up and lets us know how his library is coming along.  

There isn't any way to make him work on it.  And I don't think deadlines make sense in a volunteer organization.  So all we can do is enthusiastically plead with him to get it released and then keep it maintained, or to find other volunteers who can help.

Cheers,
Gordon