From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-04 19:17:40
David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On Saturday 04 November 2006 19:57, Thomas Witt wrote:
>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> On Saturday 04 November 2006 19:04, Thomas Witt wrote:
>>>>> It was my understanding that we don't ship BBv1 with 1.34.0, but I might
>>>>> very well be wrong what's the plan?
>>>> I think the plan was to retain V1 for at least one release cycle.
>>> The question is whether we can cut corners here. I.e. what's the effort
>>> in maintaining and shipping it? If it's neglect-able we might do it.
>>> Otherwise I would say don't waste time on it.
>>> What do you think effort wise?
>> I think it's the question for Rene ;-)
As I've said in the past. I only have time to help support one build
system. So it's a moot point whether it's a small or large effort ;-)
> We could "cheat" by replacing the v1 source files with a zipball -- that
> wouldn't generate any inspection failures.
I'm all for just removing them. AFAIK the only reason they are still
around is that there are testers still using BBv1.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk