On 3-8-2012 11:56, Marco van de Voort wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >>> 2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it >> >> I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target >> platforms for Windows. That is the most sane comment on this subject >> so far. Well thanks Graeme, very nice reverse compliment - I'll take my pills now ;)
>> It will be very similar to the LCL-GTK1 vs LCL-GTK2 >> implementation. > It also forces the target to carry its own weight, and doesn't force people > uninterested to pay attention. But that is something for trunk branch, not > for fixes like 2.6 > > But that works to ways, IOW it also means you can build in a complete > unicode emulation without the 99.9% NT majority suffering from it (read: > getting > endless binary size discussions) > > (win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode > centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are > glacial at the moment) That does sound like a good plan for FPC trunk. What do we do with Lazarus though? At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Development_Process#Lazarus_branches_.2F_version_numbers_around_1.0 AFAIU, current trunk is 1.1. We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in time for 1.2? Or is there a much smarter solution? Regards, Reinier -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
