Subject: Re: [boost] [Range] Proposal: a sub-maintainer of Boost.Range
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-27 11:47:28
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> On 27-11-2012 12:04, Michel Morin wrote:
>> Considering this situation, I'd like to make a proposal about
>> ** Adding a sub-maintainer to Boost.Range **
>> This reduces author's maintenance burden and also helps
>> more stable development of the library.
> I would like to see a more liberal policy towards maintenance. For
> example, there are many people that are knowledgable and responciple,
> and which can easily apply patches that have been agreed on.
> Therefore I see a "sub-maintainer" role as too narrow; why should he not
> be able
> to patch a different library as long as the ticket has been discussed and
> the solution approved by the official maintainers?
How is this any different than the current policy? The "official
can grant permission to anyone else to he want's to to load patches
I have done this from time to time with good results.
But more frequently I find that those who submit suggestions/bugs
/enhancements aren't willing to run the test suite on their own computer
much less take ownership for issues that result. A typical example
someone adds serialization for some component like boost::variant.
This works fine on a couple of compilers. Then it the test fails
on some less used compiler - then what? Who deals with this?
People making these "small" submissions generally fail to appreciate
what it takes to keep a library maintained. I'm not really blaming them
it's just that the idea that "a little extra help" is going to help a
little over-optimistic in my opinion.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk