I think you kick '98 to the curb and let the 5 people who use it maintain their own support for it. Bit-rot is a real problem with any code that goes mostly unexercised. I'm thinking maybe the '98 people should simply fork their own version of Sqlite. Then find their own '98 maintainer, instead of trying to force the job onto Dr Hipp.
Thursday, January 24, 2013, 3:18:15 PM, you wrote: GG> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Jose F. Gimenez <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Richard, >>> >>> thanks for replying. >>> >>> >>> We have no way of testing SQLite on Win9x and so we do not intend to >>>> support Win9x moving forward. Some older versions of SQLite are known to >>>> work on Win9x. If you are still supporting Win9x applications, I suggest >>>> you use those older versions of SQLite. >>>> GG> How about just supporting a compile time option to turn on or off that GG> optimization (on by default)? Then those compiling for Win9x could GG> just turn it off yet it would not require explicit support and testing GG> of Win9x since its the option being supported rather than the platform GG> support. GG> _______________________________________________ GG> sqlite-users mailing list GG> [email protected] GG> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users -- Best regards, Teg mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
