<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:<br>
<pre wrap="">On 24 September 2014 03:05, Steve Dower <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Steve.Dower@microsoft.com"><Steve.Dower@microsoft.com></a> wrote:
<pre wrap="">I'd like to move the Windows versions onto the next release of VC (currently "VC 14" until the branding team figures out what to call it). There isn't a promised RTM date for VC 14 yet, so it looks like the best available compiler by Beta 1 will be a "Go Live" RC. (The "Go Live" marking basically means "we think this is ready for use, but expect a round of minor updates/fixes soon - the compiler is least likely to be updated, my guess is that it'll be Visual Studio UI mostly).
It's ultimately up to Larry as RM, but I'd personally favour targeting
the newer compiler and runtime, even with the slight risk of
potentially needing to slip our schedule. There's also a fair amount
of wiggle room between the first beta and the first release candidate.
First, let me say that I'm absolutely willing to listen to the choir
of expert modern Windows developers. I haven't done much of
anything with Windows since 2007, and I don't claim to be current.
So if I'm being wrong-headed on this, you're invited to educate me.<br>
Also, having a retooled CRTL with forwards-compatible interfaces
indeed sounds awesome, and is a worthy goal.<br>
With all that said: I'm comfortable shipping everything up to RCs on
a beta compiler. But once we hit RC1, I assert we *must* be using a
released product. Release Candidates are supposed to be viable,
releasable software, and surely we wouldn't ship 3.5.0 on a beta
Therefore: if VC14 doesn't ship by 3.5 RC1, currently set at August
5, 2015, I decree we have to ship 3.5 with the previous version.<br>