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
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
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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk