On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Such an attempt should probably > > start at the bottom, cleaning up modules in the order > > wineserver, ntdll, kernel32, gdi32, user32, ... > > Is this also the order of the most mature modules? It seems to make > sense doing this kind of cleanup on the more stable parts first, since > the fixes are more likely to be permanent.
Yes, I think so (though user32 can't quite be called fully stable). Doing it bottom-up is also natural because otherwise we'd see lots of lower-level module errors while valgrinding or running conformance tests on upper-level modules.
