Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: >> I think this whole Pth thread (no pun intended) is pretty much beaten >> to death. >> >> GnuPG will deliver Pth as it stands, we are not modifying it to be a >> Solaris >> thread wrapper and we are not modifying GnuPG to use Solaris >> threads. If someone wants >> to file an RFE and take on that work themselves later, then so be it, >> but it is >> not a priority and I don't see any risk or danger in putting it back >> in it's current state. > > Yes, please end this conversation. The case is long since closed, and > further conversations here are not fruitful. Interested parties can > either open a new case (if sufficient material is present to justify > one), or engage in off-line communication. > > As a minor aside, one of the things we should look at in whatever new > tools infrastructure we examine will be a way to either "close" a > case, or put it in "moderation mode", to further posting once the > current PSARC chair(s) decide(s) that the conversations have either > drifted too far afield or are no longer useful.
For what it is worth, I am appreciative that a few comments have come in after close as they've made some opinions clearer with regards to the kitchen sink problem inherent in this case. I do plan to gather some of that email and paraphrase or quote directly for opinion fodder, which I'd like to attach to this case if prudent. I'd like to present and review an opinion on this in the usual manner, so I hope that further commentary (on the opinion -- not the case) is allowed.
