<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns1="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/"
xmlns:ns2="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
xmlns:ns3="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns:ns4="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships"
xmlns:ns5="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"
xmlns:ns6="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages"
xmlns:ns7="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<title>RE: [ofw] WDK build environment migration thoughts</title>
<style>
<!--a:link
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINK
{mso-style-priority:99;}
a:visited
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED
{mso-style-priority:99;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;}
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Once we confirm that
building in the WDK works, is there any reason to keep supporting the
DDK? I would expect support for the DDK should only be required while
some components don’t build under the WDK.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Calibri><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I say absolutely not. Supporting the DDK means another
at least another dozen builds that must all be tested.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>It sounds like the
__ptr64 patch failed to meet its objective if 32/64 support is broken.
Just deleting the __ptr64 attribute would have accomplished the same end result
and been ‘cleaner’.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Calibri><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I agree.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Also, in the future
please make patches more digestible – there’s no reason ConnectX
bug fixes should have been part of this – they should have been a
separate check in. Having so many changes intermingled, while easier for
you to publish, makes it *<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>much</span></b>*
harder to digest. Likewise, the __ptr64 change should have been done independently
of the WDK changes (especially since it introduced a regression). Your
patch touched 3500+ lines of code.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Just because SVN completely sucks for patch management doesn’t
mean that we need to make patch blob check-ins standard practice. We
really need to look at alternative tools for Windows that make this easier for
developers. Wasn’t Mellanox testing git internally? What
about bitkeeper, is that any better?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>- Sean<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>