Hi,
--- Ge van Geldorp <gvg(a)reactos.com> wrote:
> Is it just me or are more people uncomfortable by the public vote about
> people? I have no problems voting in public about issues, but I would prefer
> votes about people being emailed to a trusted impartial party who does the
> counting and only publishes the final tally. How do other projects handle
> this?
I've thought about this and I tend to agree. Like I said I am leaning towards one atm because I
know of only one that has any interest in the position but I want to hear from others about why
the would want to be or should be the KC. Once we have a list of people nominated perhaps it
should be secret ballot. Jason could even be our ballot box as he is currently 'cursed as the
cordinator' for the overall project.
Thanks
Steven
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
The results have been delayed for a day due to some last minute
questions by Emanuelle. The final results are now in:
YES, switch to a "Wine-Inspired/Compatible" Debug System, but using NT
Debugging facilities as channels: 7
UNDECIDED/HAS RESERVATIONS: 2
There were no "NO" answers, but both Eric and Hartmut expressed certain
disagreements. I've replied to them but have yet to receive a reply to
my arguments.
In any case, by a majority, the new system has been elected. We now need
developers to implement it :)
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Thanks al-Quaknaa!
On 5/24/05, Alli Quaknaa <alquaknaa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Jason,
> I want to thank for all your work on ReactOS and on that project -
> it's great! Thanks also to everyone in the team.
> al-Quaknaa
>
Hi,
Our compatibility with w2k and XP sux! Here is a old psx.exe command and compare
it with the new windows 2k compatible one we have.
http://adsl-64-217-116-74.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net/ftp/pub/ReactOS/psx.exe
Just in case!
Looking at Nebbetts book Win NT/2k Native API Ref, our SYSTEM_PROCESS_INFORMATION
for w2k is not close at all! Where is LLLONG or LONGLONG PrivatePageCount?
What is funny, psx.exe uses NT4 structures! So how can we use w2k structs with
w2k and see if they really work?
Thanks,
James
hpoussin(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>Add ReactOS version at the start of the debug log
>
>
>Updated files:
>trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/main.c
>
>
>
Please revert:
1) KiSystemStartup is called for each CPU.
2) If you want to print something to the debug log, then add it into the
debug log's wrapper code or something. The version info is already
displayed on screen anyways..I don't get the point of this commit.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
hpoussin(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>Remove some debug messages at boot
>
>
>Updated files:
>trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/mm/mminit.c
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
Please revert, these are important.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Hi,
Our compatibility with w2k and XP sux! Here is a old psx.exe command and compare
it with the new windows 2k compatible one we have.
Looking at Nebbetts book Win NT/2k Native API Ref, our SYSTEM_PROCESS_INFORMATION
for w2k is not close at all! Where is LLLONG or LONGLONG PrivatePageCount?
What is funny, psx.exe uses NT4 structures! So how can we use w2k structs with
w2k and see if they really work?
Thanks,
James
VOTING TOPIC: Switch to Wine Debug System, a run-time configurable Debug
System in which various debug modes can be used (TRACE, WARN, FIXME,
ERROR, etc). It would use DbgPrintEx along with Debug Filters (just like
on XP) which can be configured at run-time in the registry to set how
many of the messages to show. I believe the current WINE system has the
library doing all this checking, but it's possible they do actually use
the NT method. DbgPrintEx and filter states are currently unimplemented
in our ntdll/ntoskrnl, so they must be implemented. Additionally, these
Debug Messages would only be inserted into the code for a DBG build,
just like it is currently done now. Finally, using this system will
allow us to better share code with WINE.
PROS:
- Configurable debugging
- More versatility then just "Print Always" and "Print if
I remove NDEBUG"
- Better code sharing with WINE
- Will lead to the implementation of some DbgPrint
functions which NT Drivers are bound to use.
CONS:
- Requires developer time to switch to this system.
- Requires implementing some Kernel Functions.
VOTING TIME: 2 weeks. Results announced Monday 23rd at 5PM EST.
VOTING CHOICES:
- Yes! Get rid of DPRINT/DPRINT1 and
implement a run-time configurable Debug System with multiple verbose
levels, based on WINE syntax and Windows NT implementation.
- No! Stick with the current static,
compile-time DPRINT/DPRINT1 system.
VOTING OPEN TO: Due to the nature of this source-level change, voting is
opened only to developers.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
