Received: from bush.rutgersinsurance.com (IDENT:root@rutgersinsurance.com [38.138.71.194]) by hub.org (8.10.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9RCwrq59662 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:58:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from aalang@rutgersinsurance.com) Received: from 6014cwpza006 ([10.10.10.51]) by bush.rutgersinsurance.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26599; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:04:15 -0400 Message-ID: <008c01c04016$02d5d440$330a0a0a@6014cwpza006> From: "Adam Lang" To: , "Jamie Walker" References: <39F6F180.C187BD39@alumni.caltech.edu> Subject: Re: Re: new maintainer for the ODBC driver? Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:01:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Archive-Number: 200010/240 X-Sequence-Number: 1599 Oh geez! I'm almost forgot, I do have a copy of Turbo C++ 4.5 (I think). Wow... That C class I took really must have fallen into the back of my mind. Again, I have no clue if they are appropriate for compiling the ODBC driver. Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Walker" To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: new maintainer for the ODBC driver? > In article , kovacsz > writes > > >There must be (at least---and in my opinion at most) one man ("the > >patcher") who is responsible for patching the source with the new codes. > >As Byron wrote, each change should be tested by at least 4 people. So I > >don't think it would be useful to change the CVS immediately, only after > >every tester reported that the new version works well. > I thought the whole point of a CVS tree was that it was current i.e. not > guaranteed to be bug free. The sources can be marked with release tags > when they are considered stable. This would mean that you can have a > virtually unlimited number of people testing the code. > > > >Respecting to Cedar's opinion about the free C compilers, I know that the > >Borland C++ 5.5 command-line compiler is free, but I never used it. Other > >possibilites are DJGPP which perhaps could create DLLs (but I also never > >used it for making any code for Windows). CygWin can be also a solution. > >This week I would like to try all these (th/f)ree compilers with the ODBC > >source. > There is another compiler called 'mingw32', which is a native GCC > distribution for Windows - I don't know if it is properly maintained. > The other option would be to use a cross compiler. > > >IMHO, the ODBC driver at the current state is a great one, so it's worth > >to continue the work on it. Have you got any statistics about the number > >of people using the driver at the moment? > Me me me! I use it for a hospital database system. And it works very > well! > -- > Jamie Walker "While there are no known bugs in it, it might > jamie@sagaxis.co.uk destroy your filesystems, eat your data and > http://www.sagaxis.co.uk/ start World War III. You have been warned." > > > > ________________________________________________________ > 1stUp.com - Free the Web > Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com