On 11/12/2010 1:01 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
At Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:53:34 -0600, Rene Rivera wrote:
On 11/12/2010 12:32 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
(Rene: Are you saying that library authors should be more involved, or shouldn't be more burdened?)
I'm saying they shouldn't be more burdened. And I'm also saying they should not have the option to be fully burdened.
Hmm, so we dispense with the notion of ownership? That has been a foundation of Boost from day 1. Not saying it can't be overturned, but that would be a radical change.
Mostly no. The mostly depending on what you consider is owned by an author. Most the effort we expend on libraries, as a community, is in ensuring the design, interfaces, and documentation are up to Boost quality. The implementation of the library is generally less important, and many times takes considerable time, with considerable feedback from the community, to get the best implementation. So I think that the current structure already places a more shared ownership on the implementation. And we are talking about patches here, not about making considerable changes to a library. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail