Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 14:00:36

On 10/31/2013 05:20 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2013 at 2:08, Ahmed Charles wrote:
>> I'm personally on the fence about this policy. I see some library
>> authors that are responsive and reasonable with their library and I
>> wouldn't want to disenfranchise them one bit. But I also see that it can
>> create an 'old guard' sort of situation that benefits no one. With power
>> should come responsibility and there should be a mechanism that ensures
>> that libraries that stagnate are given new maintainers. I understand
>> that there is a shortage of people signing up to maintain libraries, but
>> I think at least part of that is due to the impression that libraries
>> are only ever 'pried from the hands of their dead maintainers'.
> I am personally strongly in favour of libraries getting deprecated
> and removed from releases if they are not maintained - let's say no
> bug fixes by its maintainer in two major release cycles adds them to
> the list of soon to be deprecated libraries, and no bug fixes by its
> maintainer in three major release cycles has them removed from Boost
> central and put into an attic. That encourages new maintainers to
> step forwards, and old maintainers to give up their control if they
> can't keep up due to life commitments.

With 68 libraries in a circular-dependent mesh, how do you expect that
would work?

> It would require some political bravery from the SC though, as users
> will get upset. I would also personally count lack of adding direct
> C++11 support as equal to lack of bug fixing, but I appreciate that
> will be controversial (what is C++11 support anyway???) :)

Eventually you'll ask a better question:



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at