On 31 Oct 2013 at 22:13, Andrey Semashev wrote:
I do not see a single good thing in such approach. Developers get frustrated because they are forced to do something even if they don't have resources for it. "Go fix bugs right now or we flush your work to drain" doesn't sound like an encouragement to me.
No work gets flushed. It simply loses peer review approval and reenters sandbox, and therefore ceases to be an officially endorsed part of Boost. To reenter Boost, it can use the fast track peer review process rather than full peer review.
Users get frustrated because the libraries they use disappear all of a sudden. And they may not be affected by the long standing bugs that no one fixes.
As a collection of libraries grows, eventually at some stage some pruning rules have to come into play. I wish we had more pruning in the ISO C++ standard for example, but hey it's hard enough adding things let alone removing them.
Release managers are annoyed by having to watch if a given library has reached its "inactivity timeout".
This can be highly automated. A quick query of the issue tracker database will produce a useful shortlist. Automated emails could even be sent and another query to check if the maintainer does anything after an automated email. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/