What about that discussion about why we have ditched out MSVC 2010 support
(starting to depend on that fact, and thus, breaking any possibility of
self-hosting ROS building on ROS using MSVC compiler (without the IDE),
since later versions of MSVC only work on Vista+, and as an indirect
consequence, too, opening the can of worms, that is, being able to
"pollute", involuntarily or not, the ReactOS core code (kernel + drivers)
with C99+ non-standard portable code -- ),
and without having first warned heavily through all the mailing lists etc. ,
thus allowing the developers to voice their concerns publicly in the MLs ?
This was done around in mattermost only, after we decided for some reason
that we wouldn't need the VC2010 buildbots anymore.
Hermes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ros-dev <ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org> On Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: Sun Nov 15 17:24:22 UTC 2020
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: [ros-dev] Status Meeting (November 2020)
Hi all,
With several people asking for a status meeting, let's have another one
before the year is over.
Let me invite you to the meeting on
Thursday, 26th November 2020
19:00 UTC
Mattermost private channel "Meeting"
So far, there is only one point on the agenda:
* Achievements and Future Outlook (everyone)
What have you been working on and what are your plans?
Please submit further agenda proposals by answering to this mail.
Looking forward to see you!
Colin
I totally and vehemently agree with Hermes here: We should NOT ditch VS2010.
Arguments that were raised by others against VS2010 and my reply:
-"ditching it brings in new developers to ros magically" <- I do ask then, where are they? I don't see any.
-"we should not be limited to strict C89" <- No one did request for that. All we want is to remain compatible to VS2010. A subset.
-"syncing BTRFS is a bit harder" <- So what? Then let others do the job. Actually BTRFS is not even a mandatory feature of ros. Having it in the tree is just luxury.
-"libc++" <- I see no urgent need and nothing it would give in return that would outweight what we would sacrifice.
My arguments again for keeping VS2010:
-VS2010 creates the smallest binaries of all compilers we do support
-VS2010 CAN be installed in ros, when ros is installed as Server during 2nd stage, (yes this was not the case for a very short moment, unfortunately exactly when we discussed in https://github.com/reactos/reactos/pull/2658 but now it works again, even in 0.4.14-RC51)
-VS2010 can now even open the VS2010 cmd prompt see https://jira.reactos.org/secure/attachment/57140/57140_0.4.15-dev-203-g711f…
-no other VS>2010 can even complete its setup in ros, and that will remain like that for many years to come
-VS2010 is the last version that runs on XPSP3 (which is important for some of our devs including myself)
-VS2010 is the last version that runs on 2k3SP2 which is our current target
-VS2010 is reliable with industry-proven stability, and itself no moving target (unlike VS2019 which breaks our builds every few weeks when MS upgrades it)
-VS2010 DOES provide std::unique_ptr. Stating anything else is just a lie. It covers > 95% of CPP2011-standard. It is absolutely possible and not complicated to write leak-free-code with it.
Hi all,
With several people asking for a status meeting, let's have another one
before the year is over.
Let me invite you to the meeting on
Thursday, 26th November 2020
19:00 UTC
Mattermost private channel "Meeting"
So far, there is only one point on the agenda:
* Achievements and Future Outlook (everyone)
What have you been working on and what are your plans?
Please submit further agenda proposals by answering to this mail.
Looking forward to see you!
Colin
