Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-24 12:21:42
On Friday 24 January 2014 16:09:11 Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > If you fixed a bug in
> > trunk but didn't find a chance to merge the fix to release for years
> > then you clearly don't have the resources to properly maintain the
> > library. "It's been fixed in trunk" is not an excuse.
> I think you not exactly appreciate amount of time/effort it require to push
> the change in core library to release branch.
I think I have the idea.
> Regardless of number of
> maintainers, this is still has a significant probability of being disruptive
> and I decided not pursue it unlesss I have a lot of time time to address
> the issues and really good reason to back up the change.
I can understand that you're trying to be careful about changes and I can only
welcome that. But there is difference between being careful and stagnating,
and the latter seems to be what's happening.
> The best policy is
> to push changes in batches, but now Iam stuck, since I can't push latest
> changes till I document them.
I think it is best to push changes in small chunks (maybe, each feature
separately) but often. This allows people to adapt gradually and simplifies
tracking down possible problems. This is also true for documentation, although
it's not that critical. Otherwise you have the situation like this - when you
have to merge a lot of changes at once and the probability of breaking
something is high.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk