Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Alexander Lamaison (awl03_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-05 17:09:23
Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 12/05/2013 12:59 PM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
>> Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> I think Alexander is making a good point that the membership in the
>>> group should represent the right to apply changes and not an
>>> obligation to do
>>> active maintenance of every library in Boost. Such an obligation is
>>> unrealistic to fulfill, indeed. But for one, I'd like to be able to make
>>> changes to the libraries I don't develop or maintain.
>>> There is a slippery edge in this idea though. While I'd welcome
>>> people making
>>> fixes and relatively small improvements to the libraries I
>>> maintain, I'd feel
>>> unease if design decisions were made without my consent.
>> I anticipate this only happening in two rare situations, one extremely
>> rare. The more common case would be where a maintainer is uncontactable
>> or unable to devote enough time to make the changes.
> This has never been a real problem in the past for minor
> changes, provided that someone with commit access is
> motivated enough to:
> - Understand the library well enough to avoid
> accidentally breaking something
> - Write the fix
> - Write test cases for the fix
> - Take responsibility for any problems that appear
> - etc.
> The administrative overhead of asking for permission
> on the list is relatively minor. (My usual policy
> is Email 1: Okay to commit? Email 2: It's going in,
> unless someone objects immediately.)
If that's the case, I don't think people realise that's a recognised
route to contribute. When it happens it always seems like an emergency
> For major changes, there will be problems, so if
> the maintainer is missing, then whoever is doing
> the work needs to be willing to step up as the new
Why? It rules out all but the most dedicated contributors making
significant improvements. Sure, the code needs maintaining, but why
this insistence that that only one person at a time can do that?
>> The second, rare
>> case would be where, after exhaustive debate on the list, the community
>> is overwhelmingly in favour of a direction for the library but the
>> maintainer simply refuses. It's hard to see any reason why the
>> maintainer should be able to veto the whole community for all time.
> I don't see any point in discussing this. I don't
> expect this situation to come up, ever.
Agreed. It's not an important reason for making these changes.
-- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk