Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatoryBoostlibraries
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 20:11:31
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > This is actually not that hard to obtain by looking at what repositories
> > have someone with a write access assigned to them.
> Can I see that from here somehow?
but you probably won't be able to see it. The CMT and the mpl teams have
write access, with the latter consisting of Joel Falcou and Edward Diener.
One might make a case for this information to be made available somewhere,
as the current maintainers.txt is not very accurate. Github probably has an
API for retrieving it.
> To me, the claim that 'about half (60) of boost libraries have no
> maintainer' together with the fact that, in general, the boost maintenance
> model does not like 'community maintained libraries' and the fact only 11
> libraries are listed in
> points to a self-awareness issue.
The CMT team has write access to 15 libraries at the moment: concept_check,
date_time, disjoint_sets, dynamic_bitset, format, function, interval, logic,
mpl, pool, property_map, rational, signals, tokenizer, uuid.
> 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.
The "community maintenance model" is already in full force. We could easily
assign all unmaintained libraries to the CMT, but whether that will have any
appreciable effects is another story. It's not like there are tons of people
who are both qualified and willing to maintain and we're stopping them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk