In your message of 3 April 2000 you write:
> Vote summary:
>
> Vote 1 Vote 2
> Who YES NO A B C
> Jon Leech x x
> Stuart Anderson x x
> Mark Kilgard x x
> Michael Gold x x
> Brian Paul x x
> Allen Akin x x
> Steve Baker x x
> Ron Bielaski x x
> David Blythe x x
> Brett Johnson x x
> Leath Muller x x
> Thomas Roell x x
> ---- --- --- --- ---
> 12 0 6 0 6
>
> Foo. We're tied for choices (2A) and (2C). This must be resolved.
>
> After contemplating the merits of another month of debate, I choose
> to resolve it pragmatically: by noting that all of the people voting who
> are actually involved with a shipping Linux OpenGL or Mesa
> implementation today, voted the same way - in favor of (A). That
> suffices to break the tie in favor of (A).
I think that is not suffient to break the tie. But there is another
intresting observation. A lot of people voted 2A for tactical reasons,
but would really loved to have voted for 2B. I would now be intrested
why the 2C voters think that having a -DGL_INCLUDE_NO_EXTENSIONS type
define is preferrable over a -DGL_INCLUDE_EXTENSIONS type
define. Looking throu all the discussions I only found two type of
comments, that it really makes sence to include glext.h automatically,
and that a define is needed for for somehow enabling/disabling the
inclusion. There were also comments regarding breaking source
compatibility by uncoditionally including glext.h (or including it by
default). As within a normal jury, I would like to hear more arguments
that it makes sence to go via 2C.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Roell /\ An imperfect plan executed violently
Xi Graphics / \/\ _ is far superior to a perfect plan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / / \ \
/ Oelch! \ \ George Patton
