Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatoryBoostlibraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 23:52:41
On 5/14/2015 8:11 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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?
> It's at
> 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.
I do have write access to MPL but I do not have access to the settings
of the project.
> 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
> 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