Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 20:03:24
On 05/14/2015 05:49 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> It also points to the question 'should Boost move more-consciously toward a
> community maintenance model?', even if only for some libraries. It appears
> to be what is happening *anyway* without intervention.
It would be utterly pointless to intentionally
try to move to such a model, when the CMT is
understaffed to handle the libraries we already own.
It's better to have a library owned by the CMT
than by no-one, but it's definitely not ideal.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk