Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-09 17:55:13

Next message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
In reply to: Vladimir Prus: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
Next in thread: Maciej Sobczak: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Maybe, the procedure for retiring compilers should including posting a message
> with prominent subject to boost-users and waiting for a couple of weeks for
> feedback?

I support this idea, just as a matter of principle.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Next message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
In reply to: Vladimir Prus: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"
Next in thread: Maciej Sobczak: "Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk