From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:43:06 -0500

On 6/14/2010 3:34 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>
> This seems like an honest mistake that could've been avoided by
> someone trying the build before the switch.
>

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the idea that because the
D2 hasn't made it to "supported" we should consider the fact that people
"depend" on it as a reason to not allow it to be broken.

In this case it can be made conditional that the D2 doesn't compile with
the new compiler, but there may be other breaking changes where it's
impractical to rule out the D2 and there may not be someone familiar
enough with the port to fix encountered problems.
Received on 2010-06-14