10 Mar
2009
10 Mar
'09
7 p.m.
There a bug with the ML or something? Cause this message got sent twice.
Anyways.
1. I personally don't see a problem with a moving target with the Win32
side, and the kernel has been held at 2003 for quite some time now. But
that's for the people working on those components to comment on, whether
they want to deal with working on branches. And as I pointed out in the
latest newsletter and Ged's additional comments on osnews, the project has
Vista has its Win32 target, so there's nothing wrong when developers do
implement Vista specific items in Win32. Assuming you're objecting to this,
I disagree with going for a "frozen" target since the nature of software
development and the IT field works against such a model. This doesn't mean
I don't have reservations about going after a moving target, but I find it
more strategically advantagenous in the long term.
2. I've seen quite a bit of the former, but I'm not really aware of any apps
being hacked in order to run on ROS. It's been the position of the project
for a really long time that people don't introduce hacks to get things to
work on ROS. Those that have in recent times do get called out for it. If
you see it, then point it out.
3. I wish you the best of luck getting the devs to do this. Trying to
mandate it isn't going to work if the devs themselves aren't willing to put
forth the effort to do it. That's not to say the idea is bad, but going for
an all out test-centric development methodology may not be practical.
4. Again, people who do this today get called out on it and the rest of the
devs have been spending a considerable amount of time trying to untangle the
old code that was doing this.
In response to your second email, the driver stuff is kernel side, not user
side. We'll cross that bridge when we decide to go for a NT6 kernel.