I second this motion. It's just not worth sync'ing ace.h.
bhays wrote: > > Every time ADS comes out with a new version—and sometimes even a minor > version— > > there are changes to ace.h. If we make changes to an ace.h that we > distribute, we > > continue the mindless cycle where someone happily uploads the new ace.h, > > and some “needed” changes are lost, and someone has to hack the header > again. > > Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to agree on a system where the > correct header for > > the correct version is used? Viktor’s idea is that we require an > acesdk installation and > > get the header from there. It’s a valid solution. An alternative would > be for us to > > distribute all of them for each supported version, which is ugly. > > As a POLICY: > > Doesn’t it make sense to stop pulling external developers’ headers > into our cvs > > (and even modifying them), and instead be prepared to use what they > provide? > > -- > > Brian Hays > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > xHarbour-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers > -- Luis Krause Mantilla lkrausem at shaw dot ca luis_krause at hotmail dot com "May the Source be with GNU" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
