Thanks, my current version would be going out with the 15 Nov mailing,
so probably unsurprising that it hasn't shown up there (I think?).

How does one go about getting a paper on a review schedule? Or is that
just down to specific individuals? The whole process seems mystifying to
me. Cheers for mentioning that to Corentin & Inbal-

On 10/11/2020 5:38 am, Billy Baker wrote:
> colony is currently unscheduled in the LEWG mailing list. See
> https://github.com/cplusplus/LEWG/wiki/2020-Mailing-List-Reviews
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/LEWG/wiki/2020-Mailing-List-Reviews>. I
> asked that Corentin or Inbal reach out to make sure that when a review
> does occur it uses a revision that has the changes that you have been
> working on.
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM Matt Bentley via SG14
> <sg14_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg14_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Patrice. New times indeed :)
>
> On 9/11/2020 9:48 am, Patrice Roy wrote:
> > We have a plenary tomorrow (for me), November 9. It will be the
> first
> > virtual plenary I attend, and if I understand correctly it will
> also be
> > the first virtual plenary session ever. We're all discovering the
> ways
> > in which to do things today.
> >
> > Expect "Colony v. now" to pass through LEWG at least once,
> followed by
> > written discussions, and if all goes well, at some point reach
> LWG and
> > land in a plenary after that. The fact that Jens has helped will
> be an
> > asset here, being the master wordsmith that he is.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Le dim. 8 nov. 2020 à 15:41, Matthew Bentley via SG14
> > <sg14_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg14_at_[hidden]>
> <mailto:sg14_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg14_at_[hidden]>>> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi all,
> > have the current version of the proposal in for the next mailing
> > (and uploaded to the SG14 github),
> > version v6.01 of the reference implementation has been released
> > (plflib.org/colony.htm <http://plflib.org/colony.htm>
> <http://plflib.org/colony.htm <http://plflib.org/colony.htm>>) which
> matches
> > the existing proposal fully now.
> > The fully-functional reserve() has been well-received, with some
> > people reporting they held off using it because of the lack
> of that
> > feature. So I think that was a good call overall, even if
> there are
> > some GCC9/10 compiler issues relating to performance.
> >
> > Jens has gone through and given me another critique of tech
> spec of
> > the prev version, which has been integrated. There's a few more
> > questions which I've put in the current versions 'questions
> for the
> > committee' section, so if anyone has the time to take a look
> at the
> > github ver they're welcome to give feedback here.
> >
> > Otherwise was just looking for some general clarification
> around the
> > standardisation process in the age of Covid-19, Michael noted
> that
> > face to face WG meetings are banned currently, but is
> > standardisation still happening/progressing in the absence of the
> > F2F meetings? And what form does that take? Kinda out of the
> loop here-
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Matt
> > _______________________________________________
> > SG14 mailing list
> > SG14_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG14_at_[hidden]>
> <mailto:SG14_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG14_at_[hidden]>>
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14>
> > <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SG14 mailing list
> SG14_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG14_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14>
>