Boost logo

Boost :

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

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


Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (

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