Since no one has commented on this, I guess it's safe for me to make a decision unilaterally.
Clark > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:features-bounces@open- > std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:16 AM > To: [email protected] ([email protected]) > Subject: [SG10] Formally revising SD-6 > > I said previously that I thought we would be ready to revise the > SD-6 on > isocpp.org before the Urbana meeting, and I still think that -- > the text is > all but ready now. But in thinking about the process of publishing > the > revision, I had a new thought. > > I think it would be a good idea to have the practice of publishing > a WG21 > N-document with the text we want SD-6 to have, and then basically > to copy > that document to isocpp.org to become the new SD-6. (That would be > like an > extremely primitive form of version control.) > > It might (or might not) also be a good idea to announce at a > meeting that we > have a revision ready to publish, to give people a chance to > comment. That > certainly has the advantage of transparency; the interesting > question is > whether the added delay would be worth it. In this particular > instance, that > would postpone the update by just about three months. > > Any comments? > > -- > Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard > committee) > Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing) > [email protected] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language > extensions) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Features mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
