Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In fact I raised my eyebrows on that statement of him, too. > > There's probably a lot of NT object stuff that's not 150% implemented yet, > I think. > And if the wineserver protocol isn't independent from such changes > (I dunno about that), then it certainly can't be considered truly "stable".
The point is not to freeze the protocol completely, it will clearly continue to evolve even after 1.0. The idea is that once the protocol is declared frozen all future changes are done in a way that preserves backwards compatibility. And the mechanisms to do that are mostly in place now, which is what I mean by saying it is finished. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
