Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 20:10:55
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> 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.
I didn't say it's ideal - I said it's happening *anyway* without
If you want something 'ideal', then
* awareness of what the current state actually is, and
* awareness of what is happening anyway
can only help.
Your claim that what is happening *anyway* without intervention is 'not
good' is a very important claim. Now that you know that something 'not good'
is happening, do you think it's important to know that fact?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk