From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30128 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2008 04:01:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 30117 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2008 04:01:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:01:14 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so2599720waf.20 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:01:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.1 with SMTP id s1mr875907wae.54.1201492871643; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.115.15.6 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:01:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <24b520d20801272001n40e76adbsb5a55320d8d17dde@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:46:00 -0000 From: "Doug Gregor" To: "Gerald Pfeifer" Subject: Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call Cc: "Benjamin Kosnik" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080121190830.3ca1b640@wabash.artheist.org> <24b520d20801251206j25af7291ka71bb59a5396dcf9@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 On Jan 27, 2008 8:23 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote: > > Organization: > > - We'll start a fresh branch in the FSF repository dedicated to concepts > > (it's branches/cxx0x-concepts-branch). Initially, Doug and Jason > > will be maintainers of this branch > > Thanks for documenting this in svn.html! Just one quip: in the patch > you documented this new branch but removed the reference to the old > cxx0x-branch. > > Shouldn't that be moved to the "Inactive Development Branches" instead? I was planning to kill the cxx0x-branch outright, because it has nothing that isn't available on mainline (except a not-nearly-complete delegating constructors implementation), and will not be used. If this would be better handled by moving the entry to "Inactive Development Branches", I'll certainly do that. But there isn't really anything of value in the cxx0x-branch to keep around. - Doug