Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-06 21:05:50

On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:17 PM, "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 6 Dec 2013 at 5:26, Rob Stewart wrote:
> 
>>> Even substantial  patches are highly likely to be silently ignored by most maintainers, 
>>> partially due to NIH, partially due to lack of interest in merging  and supporting other people's use cases, and partially because in the  end it's all about spare time here, and people will naturally choose  their todo list over other's.
>> 
>> The superlative, "highly," mischaracterizes the attitude of most Boost maintainers.
> 
> I think you also mischaracterise my use of "substantial".

Perhaps, but you haven't improved my understanding. So far, this seems like a lot of handwaving. I don't mean to suggest that you don't truly think the problem exists generally, but I haven't seen a pattern.

>>> The traditional solution is forking of course, so those interested  enough fork a library and take it in new directions. Boost is 
>>> particularly fork unfriendly however - I don't believe anyone has  EVER seriously suggested forking any non-trivial chunk of Boost.
>> 
>> Signals2 is an excellent example of just such a thing. We also have cases like Lambda vs. Phoenix. 
> 
> That's evolution of a component, not forking which would involve 
> multiple libraries being taken in a new direction together.

You previously used the phrase, "those interested  enough fork a library", but when I challenge your point, you decide that forking requires many libraries taken elsewhere?

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)