Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Alexander Lamaison (awl03_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-05 13:14:54

Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On 12/05/2013 09:36 AM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
>> ========
>> Proposal
>> ========
>> My proposal goes further than Beman's and gives "Community
>> maintainership" to all but the most well-maintained libraries. Each
>> library would still have a named maintainer and this would be their
>> role:
>> <snip>
> This wouldn't help anything. Every effort to
> create a group that does general maintenance
> in the past has fizzled out when most of the
> participants lose interest. If we can't even
> manage this for a few libraries that have no
> active maintainer at all, it's completely
> hopeless to try to establish it for even more
> libraries.

And yet other large open-source projects manage it no problem. Perhaps
people are scared of getting the same reception that Stephen Kelly got.

If we refine my proposal to make it a right, rather than a
responsibility of the community to apply patches to any library then we
avoid the workload issue you anticipate. Without that responsibility,
increasing the number of libraries the community team are allowed to
change doesn't increase their workload as they can change as little or
as much as they want.


Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (

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