On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 02:16:21PM +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, David Roundy wrote: > > >It may be true that there aren't many users who have installed zlib, but > >most likely *every* darcs developer who has compiled darcs on windows has > >installed the older version of zlib, and I don't see why we shouldn't spend > >a few lines of code to allow them to upgrade zlib at their leisure rather > >than forcing them (including myself) to upgrade immediately. > > Well, I don't want to write the code, I don't want to maintain it, and I > strongly believe it shouldn't be in darcs long-term, because it's just one > more configuration that we ought to test if we support. > > It might make a small amount of sense to have it in temporarily with an > explicit decision that it'd be removed within a few months, but I don't > think that the amount of hassle saved by a small number of developers > being able to delay an upgrade that they should make at some point anyway > can possibly outweigh the amount of hassle it would be to write and test > the change.
Sorry, almost the same reasoning goes for your 0.0.5 code. Dropping support for an existing library that's currently in use just to achieve a small performance gain is unwise. Sorry. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
