Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 6:48 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. What negativity are you seeing? I'm not seeing any, certainly nothing that is apparent? Will Apache consider passing along some/all of it's CLA granted rights/additional permissions to another foundation that hosts open source projects? or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) That implies that activity would be higher if hosted elsewhere. Is this an opinion or something actually known?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: There's always good traffic when this topic comes up. Thanks to Jim who's made it his mission to pull the plug on STDCXX. I think this must be his third or fourth proposal to vote the project into the attic. No, it's not my mission. If it was I would have never volunteered to be chair and stdcxx would have been moved to the attic already. And what is strange is that it seems like its only when I bring up the proposal do people actually stir from their inactivity and come back to live and we see *SOME* activity on the list.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) Why? 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) Hardly a healthy community if just 1 person is putting in some work 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review - I'm really not sure if to you this would make the project dead or in a koma. The problem as I have said before is there needs to be some compelling reason to use STDCXX vs libc++. Instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug - why not find it a new home, put a one line call for help on a blog/homepage or etc. Apache leaders have a huge readership, but this koma issue isn't on the general radar. STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions? It's a critical part in which people either lack the time, motivation or desire to push or submit patches to the canonical source? Or is the desire to force Apache's hand in the matter such that someone else's fork or branch becomes the de-facto source of this critical part??? If stdcxx is as important as you say, and you are fighting to keep it active, then put your money where your mouth is and start working on bumping up the activity. Submit your bug fixes.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2? Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this brief.. Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is summed up with this.. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is correct, but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight that. Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger communities - Make sense? Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no?
Re-focus [was: Re: New chair and/or attic]
On 08/31/12 08:18, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: [...] STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions? It's a critical part in which people either lack the time, motivation or desire to push or submit patches to the canonical source? Or is the desire to force Apache's hand in the matter such that someone else's fork or branch becomes the de-facto source of this critical part??? If stdcxx is as important as you say, and you are fighting to keep it active, then put your money where your mouth is and start working on bumping up the activity. Submit your bug fixes. This discussion is going nowhere and is not becoming of a professional community. By now it must be clear where everybody's interests lie; all who can read took note of that. Since this is largely a dispute between Apache and Pathscale as an alleged representative of a free software community I suggest you take the licensing related discussions in private. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2? Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this brief.. Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is summed up with this.. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is correct, but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight that. Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger communities - Make sense? Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no? My 0.02 of observations about FOSS licenses in general, based on my direct experience: For any FOSS component M, licensed under an Open Source License N, there will always exist a person P, or a group of persons G[P] who will declare that the current license N is inappropriate/invalid/incompatible/etc, and will advocate a change to another Open Source License Q. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: New chair and/or attic
2012/8/31 Stefan Teleman stefan.tele...@gmail.com: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Pavel Heimlich, a.k.a. hajma tropikha...@gmail.com wrote: well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. This type of comment, coming from someone who has never contributed a single line of code or bug fixes to stdcxx is tenuous at best. I offered help to the project a year and half ago. At that time the reply was that the maintainers have no time to even add more people to the project and IMO, the only way to keep stdcxx alive is to fork it and move development somewhere else, where the process isn't as rigid as here. I'm not going to further participate in the discussion (unless Stefan insults me again) P. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: New chair and/or attic
The idea that ALv2 projects can't be added to FreeBSD ports is complete and total hogwash. Pure FUD. On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:43 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2? Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this brief.. Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is summed up with this.. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is correct, but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight that. Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger communities - Make sense? Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 09/ 1/12 01:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The idea that ALv2 projects can't be added to FreeBSD ports is complete and total hogwash. Pure FUD. Thanks for the top post and your view... Can you actually address the issue and question? On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:43 AM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2? Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this brief.. Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is summed up with this.. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is correct, but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight that. Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger communities - Make sense? Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed under ALv2. My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash. That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation or 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Can you help with either of those?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed under ALv2. My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash. That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation or 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Ummm... system library These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 09/ 1/12 02:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed under ALv2. My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash. That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation or 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Ummm... system library These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. armchair lawyer response not acceptable - Unless you're an Apache lawyer?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. The issue is that I'm not seeing any real activity on any of the mailing lists... I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Good to know!
Re: New chair and/or attic
I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. Will Apache consider passing along some/all of it's CLA granted rights/additional permissions to another foundation that hosts open source projects? or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) ./C
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 06:38, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoaranikko...@hates.ms wrote: The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. The issue is that I'm not seeing any real activity on any of the mailing lists... And probably, even with the stated interest, the activity will continue to stay low a while. FWIW, I have spent my past few days catching up with the changes since '08 and refreshing on the build and test infrastructure, etc. Not much of a mailing list activity generator. Liviu
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 06:48, C. Bergström wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework for STDCXX to function in as well as an infrastructure for its daily activities. All in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) It can't be explained. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 08:56, C. Bergström wrote: On 08/30/12 07:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework [...] in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. I disagree that the recent actions have fostered positive growth in the project. 1) They fired the previous PMC - who was by far the most invested and dedicated person to the project. I don't care if he missed some reports or had a few flippant comments - I think it was pretty stupid (I mean he's part of the C++ standard committee) Again, according to their principles on what is and what is not a healthy project. I have not yet regained access to my committer account so I am not fully aware of the private discussions around the PMC switch. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012 2:58 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/30/12 07:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: On 08/30/12 06:48, C. Bergström wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework for STDCXX to function in as well as an infrastructure for its daily activities. All in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. I disagree that the recent actions have fostered positive growth in the project. 1) They fired the previous PMC - who was by far the most invested and dedicated person to the project. I don't care if he missed some reports or had a few flippant comments - I think it was pretty stupid (I mean he's part of the C++ standard committee) 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Hosting and mailing lists can be put almost anywhere and very a menial thing. I see discussions like this and bureaucratic non-sense as a dire roadblock to success. or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) It can't be explained. Sure it can, but it's biased to perspective and needs. For example if libc++ doesn't support Win platforms, or you must maintain STL compatibility or if you want to have support for C++11 sooner. I'll contribute time, resources and engineering help if the project moves away from Apache, but not otherwise. ./C
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/31/12 03:10 AM, Pavel Heimlich, a.k.a. hajma wrote: 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Just because bureaucrats say jump doesn't mean anything is going to happen. --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review - I'm really not sure if to you this would make the project dead or in a koma. The problem as I have said before is there needs to be some compelling reason to use STDCXX vs libc++. Instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug - why not find it a new home, put a one line call for help on a blog/homepage or etc. Apache leaders have a huge readership, but this koma issue isn't on the general radar. STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 03:10 AM, Pavel Heimlich, a.k.a. hajma wrote: 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Just because bureaucrats say jump doesn't mean anything is going to happen. Pavel has had an unfortunate choice of words. Let's leave it at that. --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review While I recognize the value of each one of the points you make, I am puzzled as to why you are not going forward on your way with your fork? How is the Apache Foundation keeping you from making progress on your use of the library? STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of ... We all know that. This is the reason we/I come back to it over and over again, for reference, or inspiration, or sometime just to remember the good ol' days. That's what I meant by it can't be explained. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström wrote: On 08/31/12 06:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: While I recognize the value of each one of the points you make, I am puzzled as to why you are not going forward on your way with your fork? How is the Apache Foundation keeping you from making progress on your use of the library? For our use it's not and I welcome any patches/help. It may be missed opportunity for getting a larger userbase and a moot point anyway. Specifically FBSD - When trying to push it as part of c++ stack replacement or part of ports the only objection I got was licensing related. (At this point they could also argue missing c++11 support) [...] IIUC, you would want to see STDCXX getting more exposure; one such avenue would involve having it used in FreeBSD as a ports package, with an all permissive BSD license. While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. The fact that Rogue Wave agreed to release the STDCXX code back in 2005 is nothing short of a miracle. IMHO, we are lucky to benefit from having had this library released to the public, anyway. L
New chair and/or attic
Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Thanks. Liviu
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Thanks. Liviu -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Thanks. Liviu I've been quiet lately for reasons completely unrelated to my interest in stdcxx. I'm still just as interested as I was before. I've also developed a new interest in getting stdcxx to compile with clang 3.1 - it currently doesn't. Perhaps we could also start discussing C++2011 - at a convenient pace, since only clang currently supports it. 0.02. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
