[Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2004-08-03 at 00:36, anderson@freestandards.org 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.