On Dec 17, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Cox, Michael wrote:

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

...

The Steering Committee has voted to accept the Community Maintenance Team proposal, and Marshall Clow has volunteer to act as the team's fearless leader.

See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9897665/community-maintenance.htmlfor the actual proposal.

Change the "...htmlfor" -> "html" to get to the page: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9897665/community-maintenance.html

In the document itself:

Change "we no long give blanket write" -> "we no longer give blanket write"

Change "have also volunteer to help" -> "have also volunteered to help"

Michael

P.S. I'd like to volunteer for the CMT.

Noted - thanks! I’ll be sending out an announcement and “call for participation” in the next few days. However, here are the priorities for the CMT that I suggested to the Steering Committee: 1. Keep things building on all the supported compilers (and as many others as possible) 2. Get the test matrix “all green” and keep it that way. 3. Fix the accumulated bugs; drive the bug count to zero, and keep it there. 4. Add new features. and: * Find people who are willing to maintain the libraries themselves (and are acceptable to the authors). — Marshall

I was reading the Review Wizard report and was wondering:

The following libraries have been accepted to Boost, but have not yet been submitted to SVN:

* Constrained Value - accepted September 2010; author: Robert Kawulak.

This library is not in the initial list of suggested libraries to be maintained by the CMT, which is normal as it is not yet part of the boost distribution. However, I wonder if such edge case would be part of the CMT mission? An accepted library is basically an almost acceptable/complete version of the library, which mean that the code under review could be enhanced with whatever requests but managed by the CMT. I'm not sure it's really the role of the CMT to "save" such orphaned too early library.

From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte

...

* Constrained Value - accepted September 2010; author: Robert Kawulak.

This library is not in the initial list of suggested libraries to be maintained by the CMT, which is normal as it is not yet part of the boost distribution. However, I wonder if such edge case would be part of the CMT mission? An accepted library is basically an almost acceptable/complete version of the library, which mean that the code under review could be enhanced with whatever requests but managed by the CMT. I'm not sure it's really the role of the CMT to "save" such orphaned too early library.

The library is not orphaned, just progressing (too) slowly. Recently I've done a major change in implementation that makes quite an improvement with regards to space efficiency. I still have a few items on my todo list - after completing them and git-ifying the library I'm definitely going to add it to the repository. Best regards, Robert

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:16:45 +0100 From: mjklaim@gmail.com

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Robert Kawulak wrote:

...

The library is not orphaned, just progressing (too) slowly. Recently I've done a major change in implementation that makes quite an improvement with regards to space efficiency. I still have a few items on my todo list - after completing them and git-ifying the library I'm definitely going to add it to the repository.

Nice to hear! I'm a bit surprised that you didn't release at least a version since the review, so that even if the implementation still need changes, we can start to use it's interface. Are you also tweaking the interface or is it changes that were required by the review?

I wonder if the library can be added to the Boost group, but its initial files are ONLY in the "develop" branch. (Since it hasn't been finalized, there shouldn't be any files in the "master" branch yet.) Daryle W.

From: robert.kawulak@gmail.com Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:59:55 +0100

...

From: Daryle Walker I wonder if the library can be added to the Boost group, but its initial files are ONLY in the "develop" branch.

What would be the point of doing this?

To work on the library while moving to its repository spot. Since the code isn't at "ship it" quality, we shouldn't have a copy in the "master" branch. Would it be better to wait until a "ship it" version of the library is ready? In that case, I think we should initialize the library's repository with that first finalized version in the "develop" branch, do test runs, then copy the branch (with fixes) as the first version of the "master" branch. Daryle W.

From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte Are you also tweaking the interface or is it changes that were required by the review?

These are both changes in the interface and implementation. Some required by the interview and some that I added in the meantime.

On 1/14/14, 6:55 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

* Phoenix 38 bugs and only 3 fixes the last year.

Do the authors of these libraries need some help to maintain these libraries?

(CC'ing Thomas Heller and John Fletcher) I've been communicating with John Fletcher recently and he is interested in carrying on with the maintenance of Phoenix. Before I pass on the torch, I'd like to know if Thomas (the current maintainer) is OK with it. Thomas? I'd also take this opportunity to ask anyone else interested. Please email me off-list. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.ciere.com http://boost-spirit.com http://www.cycfi.com/

Thomas Thank you. It looks as though I am taking this on. I am sure I am going to need some help here. Cheers John -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Heller [mailto:thom.heller@gmail.com] Sent: 14 January 2014 12:46 To: Joel de Guzman Cc: boost@lists.boost.org; Fletcher, John P Subject: Re: The Community Maintenance Team proposal accepted On 01/14/2014 12:53 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:

On 1/14/14, 6:55 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

* Phoenix 38 bugs and only 3 fixes the last year.

Do the authors of these libraries need some help to maintain these libraries?

(CC'ing Thomas Heller and John Fletcher)

I've been communicating with John Fletcher recently and he is interested in carrying on with the maintenance of Phoenix. Before I pass on the torch, I'd like to know if Thomas (the current maintainer) is OK with it. Thomas? I'd also take this opportunity to ask anyone else interested. Please email me off-list.

Yes, I am fine with it. I couldn't find the time to properly maintain the library in the past and probably can't find the time in the future. It would be a shame if this library continues to decay. I think passing on the torch is the right thing to do here. Of course, I will be around to help wherever I can. Please either CC or email me off-list if you have any further questions regarding the code etc. Thanks, Thomas

Regards,

On 1/15/14, 1:15 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:

(reorg'ed to fix top-post)

...

On 14 January 2014 12:46, Thomas Heller wrote:

...

On 01/14/2014 12:53 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:

...

On 1/14/14, 6:55 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

* Phoenix 38 bugs and only 3 fixes the last year.

Do the authors of these libraries need some help to maintain these libraries?

(CC'ing Thomas Heller and John Fletcher)

I've been communicating with John Fletcher recently and he is interested in carrying on with the maintenance of Phoenix. Before I pass on the torch, I'd like to know if Thomas (the current maintainer) is OK with it. Thomas? I'd also take this opportunity to ask anyone else interested. Please email me off-list.

Yes, I am fine with it. I couldn't find the time to properly maintain the library in the past and probably can't find the time in the future. It would be a shame if this library continues to decay. I think passing on the torch is the right thing to do here. Of course, I will be around to help wherever I can. Please either CC or email me off-list if you have any further questions regarding the code etc.

On 01/14/2014 04:31 AM, Fletcher, John P wrote: Thomas

Thank you. It looks as though I am taking this on.

I am sure I am going to need some help here.

Cheers

John

I'll be able to help out, too, as time allows.

Sweet! Thank you, Eric. May I request then for John and yourself to have write access to the submodule? Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.ciere.com http://boost-spirit.com http://www.cycfi.com/

Vicente J. Botet Escriba writes:

The same situation for * Boost.Python 50 bugs and only 4 fixes the last year. * Boost.Test 48 bugs and only 3 fixes the last year. * Phoenix 38 bugs and only 3 fixes the last year.

Do the authors of these libraries need some help to maintain these libraries?

I probably can handle these (large number of these are new features requests, which require new development), but I can use some help. More importantly though I need help pushing new release out. I probably just start separate thread about this. Gennadiy