"Niall Douglas"
On 5 Dec 2013 at 10:06, Steven Watanabe wrote:
My proposal goes further than Beman's and gives "Community maintainership" to all but the most well-maintained libraries. Each library would still have a named maintainer and this would be their role:
<snip>
This wouldn't help anything. Every effort to create a group that does general maintenance in the past has fizzled out when most of the participants lose interest. If we can't even manage this for a few libraries that have no active maintainer at all, it's completely hopeless to try to establish it for even more libraries.
Agreed. Boost isn't like other open source libraries because it sprawls so much, so I can't think of anyone who uses every single library in Boost and therefore has a substantial interest in looking at Boost as a whole rather than as a pick-and-mix.
I've not explained myself well enough. What I'm proposing should not make community reps feel they have to contribute to multiple libraries. Just that they shouldn't be _prevented_ from contributing to libraries, whether that be the one library they have an intereste in, or more than one. At the moment, no-one but the named maintainer is allowed to commit to a the library, except with case-by-case permission from the release managers when a critical patch is urgently needed in the imminent release. Alex -- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)