Re: Windows "STABLE" branches on squid-cache.org

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 20:56 +0100, Guido Serassio wrote:

> At 19:07 07/01/2008, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 23:18 +0100, Guido Serassio wrote:
> >
> > > As some Squid developer already know, there is a Squid 2.6 "STABLE
> > > Windows" branch in the squid-cache.org CVS repository, SQUID_NT_2_6,
> > > based on SQUID_2_6.
> > > This allow to easily maintain the native Windows port based on MS
> > > Visual Studio from which the distribution binaries are compiled
> > > (MinGW and Cygwin support are already in the baseline code).
> >
> >Would you prefer to add Visual Studio support to the baseline code
> >instead of creating a Squid3 branch for Visual Studio releases? Is it a
> >matter of adding and maintaining project/solution files?
>
> The Windows "STABLE" branches are used to generate the native
> binaries for Windows of Squid using Microsoft Visual Studio. A
> dedicated STABLE branch is needed to warrant source code stability
> and isolation/protection.
> The support of Visual Studio environment is a bit problematic for some reasons:
> - It lacks the support for configure, so there is a statically (and
> manually) generated autoconf.h
> - The build process is not based on the standard Makefiles
> - Many build steps are done using dedicated .cmd files

The above seem to be unrelated to Squid code itself. It sounds like you
need to maintain a set of Visual Studio-specific files such as a static
autoconf.h, project files, and .cmd scripts. These files can be
maintained independently from Squid source tree (e.g., like Squid web
site is maintained now). Am I missing some big reasons why you want to
branch Squid code to maintain Visual Studio builds?

Please note that I am not arguing against these new branches, just
trying to understand why they are needed...

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 15:09:51 MST