Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-15 00:03:16

On 5/14/2015 7:23 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> I was not being sarcastic.
>
> I haven't seen people on this list face the issue of which libraries have
> maintainers and which do not, although it has been raised repeatedly.
>
> I can imagine some would think it would be 'useful' not to know in a 'head
> in the sand' way. I don't know if that is the way anyone here sees it
> though. That's why I asked.

The way you phrase it clearly implies that you are making fun of the 
idea that someone would purposefully not want to know if a library has a 
maintainer or not.

>
> If anyone *does* want to know, I'd be interested in that even more. I'd be
> interested in knowing how you would find out which libraries have/need
> maintainers, and whether you want to 'make a start' at getting that
> information.
>
> If 'making a start' or even seeing the audit to the end sounds like 'too
> much work' I'd also be very interested in that.
>
> So far, there is no reliable information about which libraries are
> maintained, and there is much misinformation in the form of the metadata
> files. What I'm looking for from Boost is honesty and the self-awareness to
> find answers to questions such as 'which of the libraries that we release do
> we actually maintain?'.
>
> With that in mind, I would encourage you or anyone else to write a different
> response to my email if you are sufficiently interested.

I would be sufficiently interested in finding out what libraries have no 
maintainers only if there was some plan about what to do with such a 
situation so at least bug reports and pull requests were taken care of 
for such a library.

>
>> 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.
>
> What problem?

Even if you knew of a Boost library that does not have anyone as an 
active maintainer, what would you do to remedy that problem ?

>
> Again, not sarcastic. If there is a problem of library maintenance, then
> what actually is the problem? Which list of libraries do not have a
> maintainer but need one? How can you ask for solutions to a problem you can
> not state?
>
> The problem *I* am referring to is that you don't know what is maintained
> and what is not maintained. What problem are you referring to?