Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Anyway, my point is that supported platform is not something that we
non-committers
can decide on.
I don't agree. "people" that support platforms become "committers" that
support platforms, and the opinions of non-committers is always
important. A project that exists for the pleasure of it's committers
only is not really our goal in an Apache project.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree with importance of non-committers
contribution to the project.
My point is we can't say that the platform is "supported" until there
exist committer who regularly checks and promptly commits fixes for that
platform.
That's why it is useless to make the list of platforms that someone wants
to be supported.
Fine! lets get something working on some platform to begin :)
It is only actual participation that counts.
If someone wants to have a platform X supported, then it will take that person
to constantly submit fixes for that platform, earn committership,
and keep the platform X running by fixing breakages promptly.
And only then we will be able to say that platform X is supported.
Yep
P.S. As of the poll, the platforms I have access to and checking
occasionally are
Windows/i686 XP
Linux/i686 SUSE 9 (planning upgrade to SUSE10 soon)
Linux/x86_64 SUSE 9 (planning upgrade to SUSE10 soon)
Thanks. We need a clear set of defn's. What is "i686" to you?
Pentium M or Pentium 4 or anything newer.
It is officially called "Intel Architecture" or ia32 here,
but 'uname -m' returns i686.
great - precise is good here
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
