> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, and at
>> least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick to the old code
>> for long time it will make maintenance or development more difficuilt.
>
> yes, that's why I wrote:
>
> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible ...
As long as a compiler exists on that platform that compiles the older language
standard we should not upgrade.
I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to do when it
becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a minimum platform.
My original suggestion is that:
(1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.
(2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider more recent
OSs as minimums?
Is there anything currently on that branch that is a concern?
(3) Should we consider more recent OS minimums for trunk which may become 4.5
or 5.0?
What should drive the choice for a more recent minimums? Unavoidable
incompatibilities.
Has anyone studied modern Java JDKs and if there is an impact on OpenOffice?
Regards,
Dave
>
> So, when we got our limit here then it's OK.
>
>> Am 17.09.20 um 23:57 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> Here is my thought.
>>>>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software"
>>>>>> community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford
>>>>>> the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots
>>>>>> of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you
>>>>>> have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you
>>>>>> don't, you are screwed.
>>>>>
>>>>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that line
>>>> can continue to be an option.
>>>
>>> don't worry, I haven't meant you. ;-)
>>> It was just general.
>> To maintain 4.1.x line is a task. We have not many people maintaining
>> release lines. Keeping more then 2 Release lines, can be difficult.
>>>
>>>>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X
>>>>>> ;) ) makes sense.
>>>>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of
>>>>>> macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions
>>>>>> can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds
>>>>>> support them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically)
>>>>> possible on a low level.
>>>>
>>>> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community member
>>>> has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>>>>
>>>> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.
>>>
>>> When we haven't the knowledge anymore to support things then we have a
>>> problem. Yes. But this is not special for the baseline of an OS.
>> I think there is. And it is users usage.
>> If we look at the numbers for MacOS X (I found some here:
>> https://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide
>> We could assume that i.e. Lion is not important.
>> Maybe it would wise to ask people on Forums to vote which versions should be
>> kept. Kiving the community a choice, and a voice.
>
> Good idea. Then we know what is really used most by the users.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
