On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 06:18:24PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote: > > The main difference though is that they concern different targets, and do > > not share a Tier 1 target like win9x > > Nevertheless we have (official) testers for those two targets. They take > care for them and even add new features (remember Tomas adding support > for TProcess to OS/2 some months ago?). That's currently more love than > Win9x gets... > > Also FreeDOS (on which FPC can run) is an actively developed/distributed > platform like is ECOMStation. This is again unlike Win9x. > > So in my opinion DOS and OS/2 should not be put into the same bin as Win9x.
The category was defined as being mostly active during release engineering. Dos and OS/2 (but also e.g. Debian) are together responsible for 80% of the post branching and pos RC1 activity. That is disproportionately much. Win9x has fewer such issues in number, probably because it piggy backs on a major target, but often its issues slip past RC1, causing a Tier 1 target to be rebuild without RC validation (for IMHO next to nothing). At least OS/2 and Dos only risk their own releases. This is the major reason for the splitting proposal. ( Though again, IMHO we should simply stop support win9x in main builds. Interested people can maintain 3rd party builds for a while for the unhappy few. Technical possibilities (slapping external unicode libraries under it etc etc) enough, but IMHO that will all be talk and tinkering, but will never reach a realistic level of releasable quality. If people show they can maintain a 3rd party port to win9x for a whole major cycle, we can always revert and split at that point. But IMHO first show is viable, then infrastructural changes. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
