> From: "Lars Gullik Bjønnes" <larsbj@lyx.org>
>
> > Sometimes, yes. If nothing more than to say that the patch looks ok,
> > but that I have to get in contact with the library maintainer to get
> > it included.

> From: David Abrahams [mailto:david.abrahams@rcn.com]
> I think that has to be up to Bjorn.

Well, I do keep a list of notes and patches to make sure they don't go unnoticed, but as we all know, there is more work than just Boost for most of us, which sometimes impacts responsiveness on behalf of the maintainers. As I keep an up-to-date list of open issues, I can remind (or pester, if you will) the appropriate maintainer. If need be, I let the list, or the involved parties, know what's going on.

I do like the idea of having the status of the libraries more "official", which perhaps could include such information as the maintainer being unavailable. However, I won't be able to check and comment on the status of all patches, because not all Boost libraries are within the scope of my domains (read: I just don't get it, and am thus unable to make that call). I do, however, make sure that the maintainer knows about the patch.

I'll find the time to update the website (in time for the next release) with information that clarifies the routines on issues like this one.

Finally, I think that this is mostly a non-issue - because the responsiveness of the Boost developers is usually extraordinary high. However, my job is to make sure that the exceptions to that rule are handled correctly and swiftly; in this particular case, the patch was incorporated before being submitted, which is more than satisfactory... In future cases, I'll do my very best to ensure that maintenance runs smoothly. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome, but my metrics so far indicate that the real wizardry of maintenance comes from the wands of the library maintainers (as one would hope).

Alohomora, or whatever,

Bjorn