On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 18:03 +0000, Chris Young wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:25:42 +0000, John-Mark Bell wrote: > > > Additionally, Vince has suggested that we do a 2.5 release (once I've > > fixed the cache!), which would be the stepping-off point for the RISC OS > > build. I'm inclined to agree that this is sensible and, given the > > current rate of progress on new-cache, I suspect it'd be around about > > Wakefield by the time it's stabilised. > > Sounds like a good idea. > > Has it been decided to drop RISC OS support then, or is this a case of > anybody who wants to work on the RISC OS interface has until the show > to get treeview working otherwise it gets axed?
Probably a bit of both. I want the treeview branch merged sooner rather than later, otherwise it runs the risk of being seriously painful to merge, so am perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, beyond which we don't care about whether or not core changes break the RISC OS build. It's worth pointing out that, in general, core changes don't break frontends -- just that when they do, it'd be good to have some active maintainer(s) to ensure that things are noticed and fixed in a timely manner. SVN HEAD certainly has enough new functionality to justify a release and I'm quite happy to take advantage of that to guide where the line is drawn :). If there's some sign of active maintenance before that point is reached, great, but I don't have very much hope of it happening, based on past evidence. J.
