-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Lamaison Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:39 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
As it stands, without some adjustments in the attitudes of the major stakeholders here with regards to each other's work, I see little hope of this happening. That is a sad thing as I think their combined effort and respect could have led to much more than two competing efforts is likely to ever do.
Maybe so. But anger is keeping the two groups apart.
One camp is angry that they tried to involve the maintainer, got no response, worked hard to solve it themselves, then the maintainer reestablishes contact just to object once the work is done. The maintainer's camp is angry that the others have gone away and decided his documentation, which took years to write, is bad and needs replacing without his consent.
It's hard to see how to resolve that in a way that satisfies both sides.
This isn't just a two-sides issue. There are also a lot of Boost users and developers who have been unhappy with Boost.Test documentation, evolution, and maintenance for over about a decade. It is clear to me that Gennadiy is not willing to cooperate with anyone. I'd have sympathy with a 'too many cooks spoil the broth' view if he was maintaining the library well, but ... This is why I think that a fork *is* now a good idea at this time for two reasons: 1 It will minimize the disruption to testing that any changes to Boost.Test inevitably risks. 2 I'd like to see a much simpler faster lighter-weight header-only version of Boost.Test with a different name and a different maintenance *team*. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com