Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 14:28:24

On 31 Oct 2013 at 22:13, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> I do not see a single good thing in such approach. Developers get frustrated
> because they are forced to do something even if they don't have resources for
> it. "Go fix bugs right now or we flush your work to drain" doesn't sound like
> an encouragement to me.

No work gets flushed. It simply loses peer review approval and
reenters sandbox, and therefore ceases to be an officially endorsed
part of Boost. To reenter Boost, it can use the fast track peer
review process rather than full peer review.

> Users get frustrated because the libraries they use
> disappear all of a sudden. And they may not be affected by the long standing
> bugs that no one fixes.

As a collection of libraries grows, eventually at some stage some
pruning rules have to come into play. I wish we had more pruning in
the ISO C++ standard for example, but hey it's hard enough adding
things let alone removing them.

> Release managers are annoyed by having to watch if a
> given library has reached its "inactivity timeout".

This can be highly automated. A quick query of the issue tracker
database will produce a useful shortlist. Automated emails could even
be sent and another query to check if the maintainer does anything
after an automated email.


Currently unemployed and looking for work.
Work Portfolio:

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