Mark Martin wrote:
> 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.
Okay, although as a fast track that was not derailed, no opinion is
strictly necessary.
- Garrett
