X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10311052147.AA21691@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: New plan for 2.04
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:47:30 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <200311051821.hA5ILvh1006781@speedy.ludd.luth.se> from "ams@ludd.luth.se" at Nov 05, 2003 07:21:57 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030314-p2 at mail.rice.edu
X-DCC--Metrics: handler3.mail.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > You are certainly correct there.  I delivered some source well before it was 
> > ready at the request of Richard Dawe.  No doubt a serious blunder.  
> > Implementing the math_errhandling macros is the final step.
> 
> I don't think this is wrong. It's good to see what you're working
> on, so we don't do the same work twice. And if somebody wants to try
> it out, it's great.
> 
> But it's the integration that perhaps should wait until it's
> finished. Otherwise we need to integrate and then two weeks later
> intergrate and then one week later integrate etc.

If it gets done before 2.04 beta I agree - but I think it would be better 
to have 95% of the new stuff in 2.04 than nothing.  If it compiles and
works (even with missing pieces) I would check it in.  No harm in
having 2 versions of each file in CVS to add missing features.

Since C99 compliance was a major goal of 2.04 ...