In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010261603500.3001-100000@tir>, kovacsz
<zoli@pc10.radnoti-szeged.sulinet.hu> writes
>There must be (at least---and in my opinion at most) one man ("the
>patcher") who is responsible for patching the source with the new codes.
>As Byron wrote, each change should be tested by at least 4 people. So I
>don't think it would be useful to change the CVS immediately, only after
>every tester reported that the new version works well.
I thought the whole point of a CVS tree was that it was current i.e. not
guaranteed to be bug free. The sources can be marked with release tags
when they are considered stable. This would mean that you can have a
virtually unlimited number of people testing the code.
>
>Respecting to Cedar's opinion about the free C compilers, I know that the
>Borland C++ 5.5 command-line compiler is free, but I never used it. Other
>possibilites are DJGPP which perhaps could create DLLs (but I also never
>used it for making any code for Windows). CygWin can be also a solution.
>This week I would like to try all these (th/f)ree compilers with the ODBC
>source.
There is another compiler called 'mingw32', which is a native GCC
distribution for Windows - I don't know if it is properly maintained.
The other option would be to use a cross compiler.
>IMHO, the ODBC driver at the current state is a great one, so it's worth
>to continue the work on it. Have you got any statistics about the number
>of people using the driver at the moment?
Me me me! I use it for a hospital database system. And it works very
well!
--
Jamie Walker "While there are no known bugs in it, it might
jamie@sagaxis.co.uk destroy your filesystems, eat your data and
http://www.sagaxis.co.uk/ start World War III. You have been warned."
________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your
freeInternet access at http://www.1stUp.com
