Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] Who is in charge?
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 13:52:50
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> From: ramey_at_[hidden]
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte
> > <mjklaim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> I was surprised too, almost a year ago, that there have been no
> >> reaction - not even a reply - to a date_time bug I reported on this
> >> mailing list ( https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5753).
> > Boost does not appear to have a policy for maintainers that go missing
> > in action.
> > I think someone (maybe steering committe) should come up with some
> > policy.
> well, I'm not on any steering commitee - as far as I know - but here's an
> let's take date/time as a good example.
> a) Some smart guy with an interest/need for a version of the library with
> or most of the fixes applied does the work.
> b) He adds his name to the copyright notice
> c) Posts on his website and offers it to anyone who want's to pay
> $X for a "supported/updated" version of the date/time library. Payment
> is via paypal or some simple system.
> d) the boost version remains as it is, but now there's an alternative
> for those who need an updated/maintained/supported version.
> e) someday - date/time INTERFACE becomes part of the C++ standard.
> This means that compiler vendors who want to be "conforming" should
> supply an implementation. They now have a few choices:
> i) roll their own
> ii) roll in the boost version with minimal changes
> iii) acquire rights to the supported/updated version
Are you assuming that the supported/updated version will not contain
changes to the interface? If not, which interface would be chosen
for the standard?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk