Replies: 5 comments 2 replies
-
|
Remember we also have #4392 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Your memory is better than mine here... ;) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That's because it's a discussion I initiated... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Post release, I would like to:
The most difficult problem is reworking the argument lists of existing functions based on a structure instance rather than a loose collection of variables. Having done it once, perhaps a piecemeal approach can be adopted so no one PR is too large. PR #4409 which will be closed soon has some recoverable local code and provided an insight into what is necessary. It might make sense to do most of these items prior to the new/old split. Reworking to a unified internal data structure may make it easier to split later. Not sure. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Did the merged PR have equivalent (or better) functionality to #4409 ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Let's wait for the definitive answer, but there was a comment early on that suggested it was intended to replace it:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes and no. The merged PR stayed true to the original intent of PR #4409. The code state prior to attempting to add msvc preview versions in PR #4409 was roughly the starting point for the merged PR. The following was added to the merged PR that was not in #4409:
#4409 reverted to WIP in status due to wandering into the weeds attempting to implement preview versions. A mistake in hindsight as the full integration likely was not complete nor acceptable due to a significant amount of new code. A few smaller PRs were adopted from the work but the new code to support 4409 was larger than that of the merged PR. The original intent of 4409 and the merged PR was to accurately detect all currently supported versions and editions of msvc. In that sense, the merged PR is equivalent and better. There should be a non-trivial amount of recoverable code from uncommitted local changes in 4409 that may be of use moving forward including implementing preview versions. Some of the renaming/refactoring tasks may have already been done earlier in the local branch. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Move discussion here:
The goal is not to stop supporting old versions, but rather to stop working on them as they are unlikley to change at this point.
Then use develop for relatively (yeah I know) modern msvc's.
This should yield two benefits:
1 - The number of VMs and testing needed to be complete on new changes should shrink significantly
2 - Hopefully simplify the implementation if we know we can grab the info from vswhere.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions