minutes of ESC call ...

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 08:29:43AM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 07:57 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 07:30:54AM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 06:45 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 07:28:58PM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Thu Mar 10 16:40:50 UTC 2016, Michael Meeks wrote:

>>>>>>    + decision needed: (Norbert)
>>>>>>        + effort to support VS 2015
>>>>>>        + not eager to turn it off.
>>>>>> AI:        => regret; disable for now for CI (Norbert)

>>>>> (...) the FB devs rejected support for the new toolchain
>>>>> (C++14/C++17) for the next 10 years (at least) because they need
>>>>> the compatibility with WinXP (see the thread from their ML I
>>>>> mentioned in my previous mail).

> [...]

>>>> then AFAICS we don't have a problem.

>>> I see it differently. Just in case, we dropped MSVC 2013 and the
>>> LAST_VERSION_WITHIN_A_REASONABLE_TIMEFRAME = 10 years,

>> No, more like 1 year.

>>> 1/ How is LO 6,7,8,9,10, ... going to be released, after support
>>> for MSVC 2013 was discontinued on master?

>> ?

> How is the next LibreOffice release (5.2?) supposed to be built
> after this change was merged, when FB cannot be built on MSVC 2015
> toolchain?

We are not there yet. Obviously, if we need to switch to MSVC2015 for
5.2 and not 5.3 and FB is not fixed by then, then, yes, without FB.

Now that I look at the planning, that's indeed a two-month timeframe
(until the feature freeze). <sigh>

> And other releases during this 1 year (too optimistic assumption for
> me, but still)?

We are not talking of the same period. I was saying that if FB
intends, in the future on an ongoing basis, to be compatible with the
latest MSVC release within one year, then that will probably be
acceptable to us. I WILL ASK THEM WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. Until we
have their opinion, WE HAVE NO BASE TO DISCUSS ON.

-- 
Lionel