search for: backpedaled

...nconvenient > (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example > that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP > support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your > users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a > service pack some months later, but that not always happens. I'm sorry, let me clarify. I'm saying that MSVC shouldn't be special from an LLVM policy perspective. We shouldn't have a general rule with an exception for MSVC: we should have a general rule that includes MS...

...> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. So when it comes to using newe...

...> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. So when it comes to using newer C++...

...nconvenient > (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example > that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP > support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your > users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a > service pack some months later, but that not always happens. I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. So when it comes to using newer C++ functio...

Greetings I have twice before set up samba to operate with user information stored in ldap for personal and test usage. I have not however in the past migrated users from a windows domain to a samaba-ldap domain for my employer. I understand that vampire is the appropriate tool to do just that. We are preparing to discontinue the use of active directory and start using samba3-ldap. From my

(re-sending to the actual mailing lists... go go gadget typos!) On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > Greetings, > > This has been discussed many times, and there are a lot of pro's and con's > on each side, but increasingly I think the project needs to draw a line in > the sand and put in place long-term policies around

...mpossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example > >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP > >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your > >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a > >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > > > > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to > switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially be > using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. So wh...

...> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > > I'm sorry, let me clarify. I'm saying that MSVC shouldn't be special from an LLVM policy perspective. We shouldn't have a general rule with an exception for MSVC: we should have a general rule tha...