Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Matthew Chambers (matt.chambers42_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 11:05:29

On 7/26/2011 2:40 AM, Tim Blechmann 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?  If so, let's accept both
>> at once and put atomic on the offical list of boost libraries.
>
> i would be willing to co-maintain boost.atomic, but i really don't want to do it alone. a few
> days ago, i posted a message to see if there are possible volunteers to help maintaining
> boost.atomic. unfortunately i got zero (0) replies.

That's too bad. It seems reasonably stable now for my platforms (x86[_64] Windows/Linux), so 
hopefully not much maintenance will be necessary there. For more esoteric platforms, might it be 
reasonable to expect the users of those platforms to put forth some effort toward adding atomic support?

-Matt