>> If Boost.Lockfree will be accepted, it won't be merged into trunk before
>> Boost.Atomic is accepted.
>
> That seems unnecessary.  Can't Boost.Lockfree simply include (a version
> of) Boost.Atomic as an implementation detail for now?

this would somehow mean to fork boost.atomic, move everying to a `namespace
detail'. might introduce some maintenance overhead to keep it in sync with the
original library.