Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 17:29:16

Niall Douglas wrote:

> Me personally I'd have a "quality Boost" distro where the libraries
> supplied are only those with active maintainers

I would love to see and scrutinize the list of Boost libraries whose 
metadata files are claimed to have correct maintainer information. Follow 
here for an incomplete list of libraries which have false maintainer 
information:

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/259399/focus=259448

It's incomplete because at least MPL has a metadata file with false 
information, which was not merged by the person listed as its maintainer, 
and as we all know very well, MPL does not have a maintainer.

Is the boost community self-aware enough to be able to make a list of 
libraries which are maintained and a list of those that are not maintained? 

Do you even want to know? I wonder what would even be done with that 
information? Would you document unmaintained libraries as such, or be 
ashamed of doing so? Would you consider whether to keep releasing the 
unmaintained ones? 

Maybe you need to have the lists before you know the answer to those 
questions, which is what leads me to ask whether you want to know at all. 
Maybe not knowing is useful?

Thanks,

Steve.