Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4846F717.2080303@roguewave.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:12:07 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: TR1/C++0x Jira Issues
References: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3806@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <4846DE2A.80703@roguewave.com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3808@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3808@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:26 PM
>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: TR1/C++0x Jira Issues
>>
>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>  
>>> IIRC there was some discussion just a few days ago on how to best
>>> organize/classify the Jira issues for TR1/C++0x extensions and new
>>> features but I can't find the actual discussion.
>> http://markmail.org/message/fyc443vtfqoohyr3
>>
>>>  
>>> Was there any conclusion on this?
>> I don't think we concluded anything specific, just that the
>> TR1 Jira components will need to be integrated into those
>> for their respective sections in C++ 0x.
>>
>> While doing that, I think we might want to add a new field
>> to Jira to let us conveniently differentiate between issues
>> filed for components covered by the C++ 0x spec and the
>> previous one(s) (i.e., 2003 and 1998).
> 
> What would it be useful for?

To obviate having to "put (C++ 0x) somewhere in the issue name"
(per your suggestion), making searches for issues/tasks reported
for C++ 0x more reliable.

Martin