Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 18:58:21
On 5/14/2015 5:29 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> 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
> 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?
Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Instead you could make an intelligent
suggestion about what you think Boost should do regarding a library
which has no active maintainer. That might start a discussion which
would solve that problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk