On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 21:08 Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:31 PM Gennaro Prota via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 18:18 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 19:11, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Oh. My. God. That the committee has serious process problems was already clear, but this is really too much.
>>
>> Too much for whom? You? Why does that matter? The implementation
>> vendors have no problem with any of this.
>
>
> The depressing part is that you don't see the problem with it, and don't know of better ways to handle the issue. Get a course on version control. Sorry, I won't reply any further, because this is just ridiculous. And since I already accused someone else, it will end up with me appearing as a troll rather than you as incompetent.

Or you could just say what the problem is:

C++ *users* need to know what a particular version of the language is
just as much as C++ implementers. But the current way defect fixes are
handled makes that difficult, *especially* for fixes that materially
affect what is and is not legal code.

Of course. And this is as easy to handle as tagging the C++20 version and making a branch from there. Which is also easier and safer (i.e. less error-prone) and less exhausting for implementers.

But do we need saying this? If we do, then this people don't belong in this profession, let alone being in a position which allows shaping one of the most used languages in the world. Software plays important parts in our lives, and this is unacceptable.

-- 
--
.:: Gennaro Prota ::.
.:: https://about.me/gennaro ::.