Any reason to still keep 2005?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:gedmurphy@gmail.com">gedmurphy@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">









<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB">

<div>

<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the
msvc backend for rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its
original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when
I was adding support for VS 2010.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a
good time assess what we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6,
Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO
and only adds to the complexity of the module </p>

<p class="MsoNormal">I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products
unless anyone has any reasons against.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Ged.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>

</div>

</div>


<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ros-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ros-dev@reactos.org">Ros-dev@reactos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev" target="_blank">http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br>