Subj : Release of v3.4?
To   : RJ Clay
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Thu May 23 2013 01:05:04

Hello RJ,

On Wednesday May 22 2013 03:29, you wrote to me:

 RC>>>   So, to be clear; you think that such functionality as that
 RC>>> should be added and tested, before going to a version v3.4
 RC>>> release?

 MV>> Yes.

 RC>    Thing is; of the three code patches since v3.3, two (v3.3.1 &
 RC> v3.3.2) were changes that (thinking about it) really could or should
 RC> have been minor version changes, rather than just patches against the
 RC> v3.3.0 version, because they did involve functionality changes.

Aha. In that case I misunderstood your question. I read it as a call for what 
needs to be added. If however the rule is that a change of functionality should 
be signalled with a change in the minor version number, then that is what 
should be done.

 RC>    In other words; I think we should already be at least at v3.4, if
 RC> not v3.5, because of the functionality changes that have been made but
 RC> not yet represented by changes to the minor version number.

If you say so...

 MV>> It is not a big change is it?

 RC>    A good question, and I'm not sure yet if it would be or not...

What it involves is:

1) Define a boolean variable allow8bit.
2) Copy the code from for example "allowunpub" to couple changing
   the variable to the the keyword, Allow8bit in this case.
3) Isolate the code that replaces characters with the highest bit
   set with a question mark.
4) Skip it when the allow8bit variable is nonzero.

I'd say less than 15 minutes work for someone who has the make files configured 
and who has familiarised himself with the source code. At least that is what it 
would take me when I was still active as a programmer...

Contrary to fixing the "OS/2 problem". If that were easy to fix, it would have 
been done already. But apparently, there never was a fully working OS/2 
version. So it would take a programmer familiar with OS/2 to fix it and 
considering that OS/2 is dead for all practical purposes, they are scarce..

I don't think we should hold the train for a very small minority who hangs on 
to an OS that is on the way out. I loved OS/2, but the reality is that it is 
doomed for extinction.

 RC> I do think, though, that in any case it would involve a change to the
 RC> minor version number when it gets implemented because it is a change
 RC> in functionality.

Agree.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

.