On 08/31/12 08:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
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.
This discussion is going nowhere and is not becoming of a professional
community. By now it must be clear where everybody's interests lie; all who can
read took note of that. Since this is largely a dispute between Apache and
Pathscale as an alleged representative of a free software community I suggest
you take the licensing related discussions in private.
L
