> "The GitHub Test" is just a sticky name to help people remember. In practice, it is not limited to just GitHub.

Yea, that's how I interpreted it as well -- I don't have strong feelings about the name. My point is just that the restriction of government/military/finance access is immaterial. The test as worded should stand, since "we should include X in the standard because Y isn't allowed to use non-standard code" is a pretty weak argument.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 1:24 PM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 11:46 AM Jeremy Ong via SG19 <sg19@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
> A counter-point was raised that the GitHub test assumes universal access; government, military, and finance sectors often mandate standard-library-only code, and C++ lacks a standard package manager

I don't see how this is much of a counter-point at all to be honest. The standard shouldn't serve any specific sector, and the choice to restrict external code usage to the standard is precisely that -- a choice.

"The GitHub Test" is just a sticky name to help people remember. In practice, it is not limited to just GitHub.

Of course, if things continue on their current trajectory and GitHub becomes permanently unavailable, we may need to come up with a new name.

How about "The Download Test?"

Best