Subject: Re: [boost] On the lack of manpower: (Apache stdcxx)
From: Stefan Teleman (stefan.teleman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-06 10:48:04
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 09:43, Jim Bell <Jim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Though this isn't news, I just came across it and it speaks to our common
> problem. (And it's of interest to boost users in general.) Note that ARM and
> Sun are even invested in stdcxx to some extent.
> From Apache's C++ Standard Library project
> Â Stdcxx continues to be dormant. All but  committer have moved on
> Â to other projects. The only remaining committer (the VP of the
> Â project) is too busy with his day job to make even small changes,
> Â or to put out the long-awaited patch release, stdcxx 4.2.2.
> Â A number of users and organizations have been using the project
> Â and expressed interest in contributing to it. Several submitted
> Â patches, others have offered help with the project build and test
> Â infrastructure. Unfortunately, since no committer is available to
> Â review patches and guide the contributors through the ASF process
> Â to enable them to gain commit privileges there seems to be little
> Â hope of reviving stdcxx.
> Â A possible solution that would allow contributions to resume is
> Â to grant commit privileges to the handful of contributors who have
> Â already submitted some patches or expressed serious interest in
> Â contributing going forward.
Wake-up call for the ASF.
I have about 80+ patches for stdcxx (based on 4.2.1) which I wanted to
submit to the project and which fix a not insignificant number of
important bugs. I was willing to help with the integration of these
patches into a new release, and with testing, having already tested
Solaris and Linux, since it's my job anyway. Essentially, these
patches would make stdcxx equal to the implementation available with
the current Sun Studio C++ compilers and Solaris 10 and 11.
I made these patches publicly available in June 2011 here:
But the ASF process bureaucracy around submitting the simplest patch
makes it next-to impossible.
It's really regrettable because stdcxx is a very nice implementation of C++2003.
-- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.teleman_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk