Fabio Fracassi wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Has the fixing of bugs in the manner you cite above worked so far ? ( rhetorical question )
It does for most other big open source projects. Boost is IMVHO a bit overly courteous to the maintainer/author, which as a result means that there are fewer "junior maintainers".
Aside from bugs being fixed or doc being updated, what happens when people request changes to be made, whether additions or updates to the current functionality ?
Do it with fast ad hoc review, but with reversed sign, if nobody objects its in.
In case it's not obvious, I'd like to point out a user's perspective on your considerations. When I look for C++ code, I look at Boost libraries first. I expect it to have gone through a careful review process before being accepted. I expect to find solutions to any problems or bugs that I may run into. And I expect the most useful libraries to make their way eventually into a C++ standard. I don't expect the same quality from open source code. That doesn't mean that it can't be as good, just that I am more wary of an open source project that I have never used. Once a Boost library is accepted, it relies on developers to maintain its quality at the same level it had, when Boost accepted it. If there is no longer someone to take on that responsibility, I don't think I can rely on it the same way I used to. Again, that doesn't mean it that can't have the same quality, just that I should be wary of fixes and changes. If a library no longer has a responsible maintainer, I would like to see a caveat warning attached to it. It would tell me that I should expect the same level of quality as any other open source project. -- Dick Hadsell 203-992-6320 Fax: 203-992-6001 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 1 American Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-2560