Robert Elz wrote, on 16 Jan 2023: > > | There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The only line we > | have drawn is for requests for new features. We will continue to > | process bug fix requests for inclusion in Issue 8 for a while yet. > > Ah, OK, good. I thought from: > > [This is really Andrew Josey from the minutes of the Jan 12 meeting] > austin-group-l@opengroup.org said: > | We are planning to produce draft 3 soon. > | Once bugs 768, 243 (if accepted), and 1617 (if updated to add -w) have been > | applied, we just need updated frontmatter to complete draft 3. > > | Shortly after the meeting the ISO/IEC ballot got underway to approve the > | revision project (a separate activity to approving the draft!) Andrew will > | need to form the IEEE ballot group as the first part of the IEEE process. > > and I recalled earlier mention (which I will never find now) that it was > planned that Draft 3 be the final draft
I think what you would have seen is something that said draft 3 would be feature-complete, i.e. the last draft in which new features can be added. > (I always assumed subject to typo > corrections, editing mistakes, things forgotten which were supposed to > happen, etc, if there were any of those, otherwise there'd be no point > calling it a draft - but I also assumed nothing substantial would change > after it was published). This will happen at some point, just not yet. > I am happy to learn that is not to be the case. I was slightly surprised > to see in that quote that the revision project - ie: all that has been > happening for the past several years, is not yet formally approved. I assume this was because we were keeping our options open on the possibility of doing an Issue 7 TC3 before doing Issue 8. > That means, I guess, that if someone cared enough about changing what the > text says about uudecode and its handling of setuid bits, that a new bug > report might get that changed. Yes. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England