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"
> 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. :-)