On 8/9/06, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Having different codebases is far worse, this implies separate test >suites, increased complexity of the build system and other bad things. >It would be better to avoid this if possible. I think that is a price you have decided to pay if you choose to support a platform fully. For a complex piece of platform software like DRLVM, to newly test and perf tune this on Win2K is not a small task. It is not the same as re-running the smoke tests. That is why we need to be sure of what our minimal platform commitment is. If it is W2K, we need by definition to test on this. If it is only built, but not fully supported ( run at your own risk etc. ) on W2K, the cost is lower.
