List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Chris Frey Date:August 31 2005 4:57am
Subject:Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU make
View as plain text  
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 06:37:19PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >	VC6 project	- Someone who cares!
> 
> There won't be a VC++6 project, ever, because the C++ language subset it 
> supports is far too limited.  That's why I have to carry the ancient 
> 1.7.1 version.  Even 1.7.9 won't build on VC++6.

Whoops.  Well, that's one dependency down. :-)

It is a amazing how long VC6 hangs on.  The IDE is better than VC7,
in my opinion, and less buggy when it comes to handling resources,
which might be why.


> If I'm right, it won't be "someone who cares".  It will have to be a 
> succession of people who care.  Meanwhile, I've kicked a few of the 
> supports out from under the demand curve by providing an alternate, 
> supported mechanism, so these people will be increasingly hard to find.

Well, if those people are harder to find, then your build system works,
even with GNU Make.

I don't think anyone is going to step up to the plate to help you
wrestle NMAKE into submission just to avoid GNU Make.  So on that side
of the argument, I agree, make GNU Make the default supported tool.

I do think that someone would be likely to contribute or update a VC7
project file, as this is something a windows developer is familiar with,
and only needs some GUI work.  So I still like my contrib/ directory idea.

I'll even maintain that directory so you can ignore it completely, if you
like, and be the contact person for project files and package build
scripts, so even a "string of volunteers" can contribute through me.


> >These files would be updated on a complaint basis.  Those that care would
> >get notice to update their files during the "release candidate" 
> >announcement,
> 
> Another thing you may not have noticed: we've gotten more complaints and 
> bug reports in the two weeks that v2.0 has been available than in the 
> two months that v2.0 was in development.  I haven't groused publically 
> about this because I knew it would happen -- I predicted it in the v2.0 
> plan announcement, in fact.

That happens on every project, as far as I know.  Must be some
trait in human psychology.

Personally, I stopped using my private CVS tree around the time that
SVN was setup.  Looking back, that might have been a mistake, since I
didn't feel I had the same freedom to mess around and experiment with
the SVN account.  I've started putting release tarballs back in my CVS,
just to help me track and experiment.

Plus, I couldn't keep up with you... there's 239 new commit messages
still in my mailbox that I haven't even looked at, and my methodical
methods don't mesh well with that. :-)


- Chris

Thread
VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young29 Aug
  • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey29 Aug
    • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young30 Aug
      • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey30 Aug
        • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
          • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey31 Aug
            • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
              • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey1 Sep
                • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young1 Sep
    • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeThomas Werth30 Aug
      • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
        • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeThomas Werth31 Aug