Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Alexander Lamaison (awl03_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-05 14:17:52

"Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On 5 Dec 2013 at 10:06, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>
>> > 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. 
>
> Agreed. Boost isn't like other open source libraries because it 
> sprawls so much, so I can't think of anyone who uses every single 
> library in Boost and therefore has a substantial interest in looking 
> at Boost as a whole rather than as a pick-and-mix.

I've not explained myself well enough.  What I'm proposing should not
make community reps feel they have to contribute to multiple libraries.
Just that they shouldn't be _prevented_ from contributing to libraries,
whether that be the one library they have an intereste in, or more than
one.

At the moment, no-one but the named maintainer is allowed to commit to a
the library, except with case-by-case permission from the release
managers when a critical patch is urgently needed in the imminent
release.

Alex

-- 
Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)