On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:

So, this would entail much more effort than meets the eye
and with no real benefit.

-1

I am in no sense an expert on this, and absolutely yield the floor to those who know
far more about it than I do, but isn't the whole point to do what requires least effort?

In voting to remove MSVC6 support I'm expressing the sentiment that I see little
need to maintain it, but if maintaining it is the easier route then I see no objection
IN PRINCIPLE to doing so, beyond a general feeling that a leaner codebase is better
than a bloated one.

Is there a 'do nothing' option here? Ie., leave the codebase unchanged but no longer
declare MSVC6 support, and so no longer require authors to support it?

Just my $0.02 worth.

- Rob.