stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <>
Subject RE: 4.2.1 platforms
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:26:43 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: 4.2.1 platforms
> Tim Adams wrote:
> > IBM dropped support for Visual Age 6 last spring.  So while 
> you all may
> > want to support it as a best effort platform, it probably 
> shouldn't be a
> > secondary platform.
> Thanks for the feedback Tim. I was going to say: Sure thing! but
> then I thought about it from the perspective of users of these
> platforms who just want to get a few bugs fixed in stdcxx...
> It makes sense to me as a general rule to move platform to the Best
> Effort category when it ceases to be supported by the vendor. Let
> me update our release process document.
> For patch releases though, I'm not sure if it should be considered
> acceptable to break a platform that worked in the previous release.
> My feeling is that in bugfix releases users should be able to rely
> on 100% compatibility with the previous release.

Good point.  These platforms should be "obsoleted" (like gcc does) in
4.2.x and then dropped completely in 4.3.


View raw message