Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 04:33:11
On Jul 25, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
> I think the most important thing is that there be active maintainers for both libraries so that when issues come up they are fixed.
> More than a review, atomic needs a maintainer. Lockfree, I am already convinced, is in good hands. If the lockfree maintainer is willing to maintain atomic as an implementation detail, why not as a stand alone library?
Well, IMO the difference would be, if Tim includes it as a detail of his library, then he's only claiming that as much works as is used by Lockfree.
BTW, are we talking about lockfree::detail::atomic or lockfree::atomic?
For the same reason of not being quite ready for review, my mpl_graph is currently included in msm as msm::mpl_graph, which I suppose means that Christophe claims that it's working well enough for him. Of course I am still its maintainer, so that's a little different.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk