Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: > But the question is this: > > 1) Do you want me to do this kind of janitor stuff? > 2) or do you want me to find and fix the difficult bugs in the kernel? > > It's your choice.
2) please. I'm quite happy to integrate the janitor stuff slowly. I picked up Ruurd's patch on 13 Dec because I have been minded for a year and a half of a conversation we had that there really was no excuse to not support Windows officially. Having said that, there's no need for us both to do the boring stuff. > If you choose 1), I'd just forget about integrating the patches into CVS > for now, and just do 2) anyway with the portability changes being local > to my computer. I don't see the need to rush the portability changes into the tree. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to put your patch in development/win32. Why do I say that? Because I think we're both missing Lars' point that #ifdef stuff in the core (ie, src directory) probably means a missing abstraction. #ifdefs go in support. Having said that (again), I've already indicated those parts of the patch which, IMO, should just go into the repository. The qt changes, f.ex. > Andre and others, which have a desire for working with a decent Windows > toolchain, can then ask for the patches and them themselves. > > Regards, > Asger -- Angus
