On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> the only question is: do you want to support windows 2000? :)
>
> Sure, why not?
>
>> I would suggest to keep 2k/xp support for 0.19.x and move to a newer
>> version for 0.20.x. Doing so bring less issues as current users will benefit
>> from bug fixes in the 0.19.x branch.
>
> I assume you mean 7.19.x and 7.20.x,

Yes, sorry :)

> but can you explain to me what the
> benefits are for us to drop the win2000 support?

Unless you begin to use win 2003 or later features, there is no
significant gain. The gains come when you begin to use some the target
specific API in your code directly (for example, vista/2008/win7
supports many inet_* compatible API or symlinks).

> First, we're only right now in this thread talking about using VS2008 to
> build for win2000, so even if VS2008 won't be able to do it (by our choice
> or by other limitations) I don't see why other compilers couldn't.

VC6 (not available anymore), VS2003 (7/7.1) and 2008 can do it. The
latest stable platform SDK supports win2000 as well. I do not have yet
the info about the final win7 SDK, but I suppose it will support it as
well. That means there is no technical reason to stop to support win
2000.

> I don't think we face any greater burdens today by "supporting" win2000 so
> the biggest change in my view would be that the (few?) users of such systems
> wouldn't be able to keep up with the libcurl development with no significant
> gain to us.

Exactly.

Cheers,

-- 
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org