Subject: Re: [boost] [asio] Issues piling up
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-12 00:38:17
On 10/11/2018 8:08 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:37 PM Edward Diener via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Just say here you would like to maintain the asio library
> That's nice in theory, but Boost.Asio is generated by this script
> which runs on the stand-alone version of the source code:
Are you saying that their is code in Boost asio which relies on asio
code outside the Boost repository. That does not seem like a good
situation to me, unless that other code is publicly accessible. Even
then it is better if all code directly related to a library is contained
within the Boost repository of that library. I am of course not talking
about some 3rd party library code which is popular and publicly
accessible by everybody.
> Making changes directly to Boost.Asio would essentially cause a fork,
> so this isn't really an option. Anyway as Andrey said, it should be up
> to the author to decide whether to bring on a helper.
> We don't have to make changes to Boost.Asio directly, we can just
> submit pull requests to the stand-alone Asio for new features and bug
> fixes, as these people have done:
> Unfortunately, few if any of these pull requests get a response from
> the maintainer, which brings us back to the problem described in the
> original post...
> There are quite a few useful, complete features which contributors
> have taken the time to develop and submit but which have languished
> with no response, sometimes for years. Examples:
> Added wolfSSL Compatability for Asio instead of OpenSSL (5 months)
> LibreSSL compatibility (1 year 7 months)
> Add DTLS support to asio (2 years)
> This one in particular is so sad, people have come back periodically
> to beg for attention to the issue but they are met with silence:
> Fix #116: Enables ECDHE temporary parameters in ASIO SSL #
> Some of these pull requests even manage to elicit lively and
> productive discussions and revisions, but there's no official
> It would be nice to be able to close issues in Boost.Asio which are no
> longer relevant or resolved, to reduce the noise.
> To be clear, I am not suggesting that someone else should maintain the
> library. I am only bringing attention to the fact that there is a lack
> of official responses to issues in Asio's respective repositories, and
> that pull requests are often ignored. This affects me indirectly,
> since Beast is built on Asio. For example, I have to keep hearing from
> users about the "Boost.Coroutine is deprecated" warning:
> This is because Asio uses Boost.Coroutine which is supposedly
> deprecated. But there is an impasse between the authors of those
> respective libraries (Boost.Coroutine2 requires C++11, and Asio only
> requires C++03). And me and my users are the casualties.
I think if an author and/or maintainer of a Boost library is not at all
responsive to PRs and bug reports Boost should be able to assign another
maintainer. But of course the current maintainer should be contacted
first to see what his response to such a situation would be.
I just do not want to discourage anyone who is capable and wants to help
maintain a Boost library for which the current maintainer(s) are not
addressing problems. We have far less maintainers than we have libraries
so it is natural to want to encourage any capable person who wants to be
a maintainer of a library which is not being actively maintained well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk