I think 3.1 should definitely provide MSVC2010 project files. Is there a public 3.1 repo to which I could contribute?
Stuart On 20:59, Martin Sustrik wrote: > 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
