This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- To: anderson at freestandards dot org
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:16:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040729223009.8074037D8D@carmen.fc.hp.com> <20040802161714.A25549@synopsys.com> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0408021922520.2502@localhost>
On Maw, 2004-08-03 at 00:36, email@example.com wrote:
> This is what we have been saying all along, though we haven't used the
> term 'stopgap'. LSB 2.0 is based on what's in the field today, and has a
> bounded lifespan. LSB 3.0 will be based on a later version, and likewise
> will probably have a bounded lifespan.
The "stopgap" or some marketing equivalent of that is important IMHO. As
is not sticking stopgaps into ISO submissions.
Call it "stopgap" call it "interim" call it "oh shit" I don't care, but
recognize the importance of the message please.