[sent from tiny mobile device] On Jul 9, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe there should be two types of maintainers: there could be the usual, actively maintained libraries and a new type of "passively" maintained library. A passively maintained library could be modified without the maintainers direct evolvement.
Technically speaking we can already do that, but it isn't neighborly.
But of course, the maintainer would hold a veto prerogative over any change. So, when someone submits a patch for a bug or feature request for a passively maintained library,
1) if people on the list are interested and agree, then the patch can be applied; 2) if there is a dispute, it can be brought to the attention of the passive maintainer for resolution; 3) the passive maintainer can always veto.
This would only work when users/boosters take the initiative to learn the code and submit a patch, but that's not unusual. Giving library authors an opportunity to declare their intent to become passive maintainers could be a good thing.
I love it. +1 from me
For one, this would allow authors of mature libraries to transition openly to other projects rather than simply disappearing. Not everyone has the courage to recognize when their circumstance are changing, as you did Dave. Thanks for taking the lead on this!
Daniel Walker
P.S. And also thanks for retracting your suspension! Personally, I have learned so much from your work with boost over the years. The more active you are, the better off all the rest of us are! _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost