On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Viktor Szakáts <harbour...@syenar.hu> wrote:
> I'd like to get agreement on this from the list, because I'm > willing to do it but unless the group can agree to do it I wouldn't > want to force this. > ... > - harbour.cfg + Harbour -go option: hbmk2 is here as a better solution. > - hb* helper scripts, batches: confuse users, and doesn't add functionality. > - hb-mkslib compatibility name: not widely used, easy to add locally for > those who depend on it, otherwise it > just creates ambiguity. > - gcc specific hbmk script: hbmk2 is meant to replace it. > - rename hbmk2 to hbmk. > I'd like to hear opinions. I agree that hbmk2 is a step in the right direction, but I don't think we should remove hb* scripts in 1.1 ( I use only *nix envs + msys/mingw I can't say much for Win based ones ). IMHO doing "big" changes between two consecutive releases creates a sense of "instability" and makes harder to test the svn since a user needs save the old env, do the changes, do the tests and restore the env. I mean that ideally a 1.0.1 user should be able to install 1.1 and build his apps without any single change. Release 1.2 can drop what 1.1 has been previously declared deprecated and so on. We also need to care about 3rd party projects. They may need the time to make the required changes. best regards, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
