Edward Diener wrote:
Maybe you need to have the lists before you know the answer to those questions, which is what leads me to ask whether you want to know at all. Maybe not knowing is useful?
Your sarcasm is not appreciated.
I was not being sarcastic. I haven't seen people on this list face the issue of which libraries have maintainers and which do not, although it has been raised repeatedly. I can imagine some would think it would be 'useful' not to know in a 'head in the sand' way. I don't know if that is the way anyone here sees it though. That's why I asked. If anyone *does* want to know, I'd be interested in that even more. I'd be interested in knowing how you would find out which libraries have/need maintainers, and whether you want to 'make a start' at getting that information. If 'making a start' or even seeing the audit to the end sounds like 'too much work' I'd also be very interested in that. So far, there is no reliable information about which libraries are maintained, and there is much misinformation in the form of the metadata files. What I'm looking for from Boost is honesty and the self-awareness to find answers to questions such as 'which of the libraries that we release do we actually maintain?'. With that in mind, I would encourage you or anyone else to write a different response to my email if you are sufficiently interested.
Instead you could make an intelligent suggestion about what you think Boost should do regarding a library which has no active maintainer. That might start a discussion which would solve that problem.
What problem? Again, not sarcastic. If there is a problem of library maintenance, then what actually is the problem? Which list of libraries do not have a maintainer but need one? How can you ask for solutions to a problem you can not state? The problem *I* am referring to is that you don't know what is maintained and what is not maintained. What problem are you referring to? Thanks, Steve.