Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] Who is in charge?
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 13:52:50
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> From: ramey_at_[hidden]
>
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte
> > <mjklaim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> I was surprised too, almost a year ago, that there have been no
> >> reaction - not even a reply - to a date_time bug I reported on this
> >> mailing list ( https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5753).
> >
> > Boost does not appear to have a policy for maintainers that go missing
> > in action.
> > I think someone (maybe steering committe) should come up with some
> > policy.
>
> well, I'm not on any steering commitee - as far as I know - but here's an
> idea.
>
> let's take date/time as a good example.
>
> a) Some smart guy with an interest/need for a version of the library with
> all
> or most of the fixes applied does the work.
>
> b) He adds his name to the copyright notice
>
> c) Posts on his website and offers it to anyone who want's to pay
> $X for a "supported/updated" version of the date/time library. Payment
> is via paypal or some simple system.
>
> d) the boost version remains as it is, but now there's an alternative
> for those who need an updated/maintained/supported version.
>
> e) someday - date/time INTERFACE becomes part of the C++ standard.
> This means that compiler vendors who want to be "conforming" should
> supply an implementation. They now have a few choices:
>
> i) roll their own
> ii) roll in the boost version with minimal changes
> iii) acquire rights to the supported/updated version
Are you assuming that the supported/updated version will not contain
changes to the interface? If not, which interface would be chosen
for the standard?
Regards,
Nate