Re: Someone using COMPAT_SVR4(_32) ?

On Aug 1, 10:21pm, Maxime Villard wrote:
} Le 01/08/2017 à 21:20, Dave McGuire a écrit :
} 
} >> Again, if it "simply" needs to be fixed, why didn't you fix it?
} > 
} >    Ah, finally the predictable response.  I was beginning to worry.
} 
} Yeh; sorry, but I'm indeed one of the ones that spend time improving code
} quality, and yes, when someone comes in and wants to tell me what to do and
} how to do it, I'm automatically tempted to ask them why they don't do it
} themselves.

     Nobody is telling you what to do.  YOU are telling other people
what to do, with the threat of removing code if they don't do what
you tell them.

} >> Finally, removing this piece of code has little to do with shiny stuff. It
} >> has to do with making the code base clearer, in such a way that several of
} >> our ports are easier to maintain, and as a result, more functional.
} > 
} >    You misunderstand.  I wasn't accusing YOU of only wanting to work on
} > shiny stuff.  Rather, I was describing why COMPAT_SVR4 remains unfixed,
} > and other areas of the code become stagnant, while new features get added.
} 
} Yes, I understood that. What I was implicitly telling you, is that as a
} result of removing dead code, the code quality of the functional parts is
} increased, in such a way that even if a potential feature is gone, there is
} a benefit for the users and developers. There is no "letting people down to
} work on more shiny stuff" - people benefit from clean code.
} 
} But that's out of the point. I'll remind you that my initial question was
} whether someone could show a use case.

     Again, who's giving you permission to do this?  This isn't
the type of decision to be made by a single random developer.

}-- End of excerpt from Maxime Villard