Philippe Vaucher wrote:
Shouldn't we try to move to team maintenance for most if not all libs?
-1
Having only one (or two) people responsible for widely used libraries doesn't seem ideal.
one person is plenty if he keeps the work up to date.
I think a lot of people would be willing to help out.
I think lots of people would be happy to apply their own patches. But they solve their own problems and don't think of the situation as a whole. I get patches all the time. about half of them are mistakes - that is would break something else. half of them are patches to address some misunderstanding in how hte library works. half of them are OK, but end up being tweaked after testing. half of them break some feature of the library - like not requiring RTTI half of them fail to include work arounds for non-conforming compiles * none of the submiters re-run the test suite to verify that there are no side-effects. I guess this is becuase it's so "obvious" that the patch can't break anything that it's not necessary. This job is left to me. So just letting every patch through would create a lot more work than it would save.
I think this is a great idea. We need to make it easier for user patches to be applied.
maybe the best in this case would be to get date.time accepted into the standard - then we can just let the vendors deal with it. Robert Ramey
Philippe
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost