PSARC 2008/549 Re: Apache Standard C++ Library ARC Case

[Garrett D'Amore]

John Plocher wrote:
> Looks like mucho lotso progress has been made.  It looks pretty good,
> but I still have a couple of questions:
>
>   o This case obsoletes STLport4 (section 4.1).  How will existing
>     users of STLPort4 find out that we did this?  ("#warnings in
>     headers...?)
>
>   o This case starts libC on its own path towards Obsolescence (4.3, 4.4)
>     Same comments apply as above, but not as urgently.
>
>   o What are the actual dependencies between this project and the 
> studio12
>     compilers?
>
>   o Who is signed up to track the Apache stdcxx project and update the
>     bits in SFW over time, and how do you expect those bits to evolve?
>     (picky interface taxonomy details needed, along with a bigger picture
>     of who gets a chair when the music stops - erm, I mean, what happens
>     when Apache comes out with incompatible change or does a Major     
> Version 5 or 6 ...)

I think the DevPro folks are signing up here (waiting for final word on 
it.)  Incompatible changes are verboten (at least not without a separate 
formal case to approve such changes.)  That is part and parcel of the 
proposed Committed binding.

All of the above questions are really appropriate for the DevPro folks 
to answer.
>
> and clarifications:
>
> ...
>>>     4.5.    The contents of this document do not establish ARC 
>>> Precedent.
>
> This conflicts with the statements in 4.1 thru 4.4 - of you expect any 
> of them
> to be followed, you *need* a precedent.

I think 4.5 can be reworded to indicate that precedent set here is 
limited to the Apache C++ v4.x line (based on C++ 2003) and that a 
separate case, with lots of detail, would be required for any future 
v5.x library (i.e. C++ 2010) which may need to break compatibility. 

    -- Garrett