From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 00:15:40
Matthias Troyer wrote:
> OK, since I also do not get paid for this, and your criticism is
> based on a change that you yourself proposed on June 4th, my proposal
> is to stop the discussion right here, go back to the state of June
> 4th, where our optimizations were completely decoupled from your
> archives. That way you will be able to implement the array
> optimization for the binary archive in the way you like best, and we
> have our own way. Please confirm and I will do that.
Honestly, I don't remember the state of things 4 June. And
I don't remember the character of my complaints. I presume
that going back would just substitute the original complaints
for the current ones.
I've stated my current reservations. I wanted to make them
known in case someone else might share them or others.
It seems that I'm the only one who has these views - a
familiar and comfortable position for me..
I do appreciate the interest, initiative and effort and I'm
flattered that you found it worthy of this investment of effort.
And, I AM happy to relinquish responsability for enhancement,
support and maintainence for this portion of the library. You've
listened to my concerns and tried to answer them and
I appreciate that. But, we'll just have to agree to disagree
- I can live with that. So feel free to move forward with
the accordance with your good judgment.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk