On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström <[email protected]> wrote: > ----------- > The facts as I know it > 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to > Apache now)
Why? > 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) Hardly a healthy community if just 1 person is "putting in some work" > 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work > 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If > Jörg has the time) > 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code > review > ------------- > I'm really not sure if to you this would make the project dead or in a koma. > The problem as I have said before is there needs to be some compelling reason > to use STDCXX vs libc++. Instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug - > why not find it a new home, put a one line call for help on a blog/homepage > or etc. Apache leaders have a huge readership, but this "koma" issue isn't > on the general radar. > > STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* > part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible > - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions? It's a "critical" part in which people either lack the time, motivation or desire to push or submit patches to the canonical source? Or is the desire to "force" Apache's hand in the matter such that someone else's fork or branch becomes the de-facto source of this "critical" part??? If stdcxx is as important as you say, and you are fighting to keep it active, then put your money where your mouth is and start working on bumping up the activity. Submit your bug fixes.
