Good point Martin. I wasn't suggesting you "break a platform that was working in a previous release", but I suppose I was being a bit overzealous, mainstream support for Visual Studio 2003 doesn't end until October 14th, this year.
-- Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 4.2.1 platforms > > Tim Adams wrote: > > IBM dropped support for Visual Age 6 last spring. So while you all > > may want to support it as a best effort platform, it probably > > shouldn't be a secondary platform. > > Thanks for the feedback Tim. I was going to say: Sure thing! > but then I thought about it from the perspective of users of > these platforms who just want to get a few bugs fixed in stdcxx... > > It makes sense to me as a general rule to move platform to > the Best Effort category when it ceases to be supported by > the vendor. Let me update our release process document. > > For patch releases though, I'm not sure if it should be > considered acceptable to break a platform that worked in the > previous release. > My feeling is that in bugfix releases users should be able to > rely on 100% compatibility with the previous release. > > > I could state many reasons, but suffice it to say that IMHO > MSVC 7.1 > > should also be on the best effort list. > > > > Thoughts? > > If Microsoft still supports MSVC 7.1 (I think that's Visual Studio > 2003) we should, IMO, keep in the Secondary category unless > doing so makes things difficult. I don't have a very good > sense about how hard the MSVC 7.1 port is but unless it > causing us major headaches, using VisualAge 6 as a precedent > MSVC 7.1 should remain a Secondary Platform until 4.3. > > Martin > > > > > -- Tim > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin > >> Sebor > >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:08 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: 4.2.1 platforms > >> > >> Here's my proposed list of platforms for 4.2.1. I don't > think we can > >> quite meet the release goals outlined in the release > policy (I don't > >> see us cleaning up all the test failures and warnings on > all Primary > >> platforms) but we might as well try to use the process to > the extent > >> we can. > >> > >> Let me know if I've missed something. Once we have the > final list I'd > >> like to open a vote on it. > >> > >> Primary: > >> > >> HP aCC 6.16/HP-UX > >> HP aCC 3.74/HP-UX > >> gcc 3.4, 4/Linux > >> Intel C++ 10/Linux/Windows > >> MSVC 8.0, 9.0/Windows > >> Sun C++ 5.9/Solaris > >> XLC++ 9.0/AIX > >> > >> Secondary: > >> > >> EDG eccp 3.9/Linux > >> gcc 3.2/Linux > >> gcc 3.4/FreeBSD > >> Intel C++ 9.1/Linux/Windows > >> MSVC 7.1/Windows > >> Sun C++ 5.9/Linux > >> Sun C++ 5.8, 5.7/Solaris > >> XLC++ 8.0, 7.0/AIX 5 > >> VisualAge 6.0/AIX 5 > >> > >> Best Effort: > >> > >> EDG eccp 3.9/Solaris > >> gcc 4/Darwin > >> HP C++ /Tru64 UNIX 6.5 > >> MIPSpro 7.41/IRIX 6.5 > >> Sun C++ 5.3/Solaris > >> > > > >
