What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? Martin
On 11/25/2011 12:07 AM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Stuart Webster<[email protected]> > wrote: >> I think those are practical suggestions. Mikko raised the point that we >> shouldn't drop support for VC9 in a point release of 0MQ 2.1 for reasons >> of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure whether he was referring to >> compatibility with other components or other toolsets. Could you please >> elaborate, Mikko? I can't see how backwards compatibility is a >> significant issue. > > Hi, > > 2.1 series is currently stable and we cannot change the build files to > MSVC10 format (which is not backwards compatible with the earlier > versions) in the middle of the cycle. In my opinion stable doesn't > mean just the code but also the tools around it including builds. > > We had a discussions about moving to CMake earlier but I don't think > we can give up the autotools due to better cross compilation support. > The impression I got from Steven is that CMake is not quite there yet > regarding cross builds. Therefore I see very little benefit in adding > CMake unless we replace the Windows project files with CMake > completely. If not, this just adds another build system to maintain. > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
