Subject: Re: [boost] [test] boost.test owner unresponsive to persistent problems for multiple years
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-08 14:35:47
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
>> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>>> a situation where a lone worker was solely controlling a key library
>>> used by almost all others.
>> Isn't that exactly how boost is designed to work?
> I'm not sure how was boost was designed - or evolved ( I suppose it
> upon one's religion).
The most stark difference between Boost and KDE is that a KDE contributor
can push to all KDE repositories. The same is not true of Boost, and it is
designed that way. You write below it is a good thing. I don't agree. I
think there's a better middle ground to arrive at.
That is also a contributor to why there are so many unmaintained libraries
in Boost. Far more libraries than are listed as the responsibility of the
CMT are actually unmaintained in reality - the dead pull requests and
desperate mails like
You might want to make a list of what is actually maintained instead and
then decide if you want to do anything about that.
> It promotes conceptual integrity and
> for smaller, decoupled libraries.
Decoupled? Erm, WAT?
That is definitely, simply, not a true description of Boost for many many
Check your illusions :).
> One thing we do is that once a library
> accepted, it shuts the door to anyone proposing alternatives.
There is definitely no consensus on this
Another instance showing that there isn't generally cohesive opinion in
Boost. Maybe another effect of the lone-wolf design.
> If we had statistics on library usage, we could drop accepted
> libraries from the "standard" distribution when they fall out of favor.
There are so many strong opinions opposed to that, you'd have to form
something of a community based on consensus before actually doing it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk