Re: Visual Studio .NET 2003 port

[email protected] wrote:

>>I "ported" gephex to Visual Studio .NET 2003. If anybody wants to give 
>>it a try, I updated README.win32 in the base directory (not a lot has 
>>changed in the building process though). Be aware that QT 3.2 is used 
>>(and most presumably needed).
>>There seems to be either a qt problem or i introduced a bug, but the gui 
>>is crashing when you add a control. I'll try and fix that now. 
>>Anyway...this just in so you know it's still beta atm.
>>
>>Since there is a free version of QT 3.2 delivered witht the book now I 
>>propose that when everything is working fine to drop support for not 
>>only QT 2.3 but also Visual Studio 6. I can't see anybody maintaining 
>>the windows side for both IDEs/Compilers in the long run....what do you say?
>>    
>>
>
>Please do not merge this into --main--!
>This is a huge change on the win32 side and should not be
>done before 0.4.1.
>Apart from new bugs: do you know how much time it took to get the
>automatic console build working?
>  
>
Bugs are fixed by now, the change itself is actually not a real 
"change": The VS6 projects are completely untouched and there are very 
few actual code changes, mostly concerning compiler version defines. I 
did not touch the automatic console build either.

>Furthermore, this change does not fit into our plans very well.
>Instead of doing big changes in 0.4, we wanted to concentrate on 0.5.
>And our goal was to get rid of visual studio alltogether and use cygwin
>or msys on win32 (but only in 0.5, because we did not want to put too much
>into the 0.4 build system).
>  
>
The whole reason for this "port" is actually so I can work on Gephex 
code again. I don't see the point of having VS6 installed on any of my 
machines, because it sucks. I for my part would still appreciate a build 
system that uses the visual studio IDE.
While it is true that a focus on 0.5 was decided this was merely a setup 
so I was able to respond to martin's request of a directx driver for the 
output (which is not finished yet though). If i was gonna work on 0.5 I 
would surely choose Visual Studio for a programming environment also.

>To sum up: i'm strictly against this change before 0.4.1 and still against
>it after 0.4.1.
>  
>
Again: this is not a change! It's an addition to the exisiting code base 
that is targeted towards people working on windows with up-to-date 
compilers. So I don't see the point AT ALL why not to merge this into main.

-coma