Re: MPS: Win64 testers?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:18:16 +0000
> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org
> 
> > Thanks, but this is just a first small step in the right direction.
> > We need this verified with Emacs, not a small separate test program,
> > and we need then some serious testing of whatever solution we decide
> > to implement.
> 
> I think the bar is slightly lower than that: the code in Emacs is clearly 
> buggy, because it relies on strange and peculiar implementation details that 
> go far beyond anything guaranteed by the API (and that may break at any point 
> on new systems). Replacing it is necessary.

I disagree.

> > All of that requires a volunteer who will take upon
> > him/herself to implement and test the possible solutions on the actual
> > platform, and then maintaining that and the rest of UCRT-specific
> > stuff for some reasonably observable future.
> 
> This isn't UCRT-specific, and, as far as I'm concerned, "the actual platform" 
> is Wine, not Microsoft Windows. If a UCRT build works on wine, it's quite 
> likely to work on Microsoft Windows machines, too.

Not relevant to the requirement of having a dedicated support person.

> > IOW, this needs a
> > dedicated support person.
> 
> That's desirable, yes, but hardly necessary.

I disagree, and that's not for you to decide, with all due respect.

> There's a difference between fixing obvious bugs that will prevent builds 
> from ever working and deciding a platform is "officially" supported.

This bug is far from "obvious", and finding a fix for it that will do
what the original code does requires non-trivial testing.  Until that
is done, I don't trust the proposed solution (and it was not a
complete proposal anyway).

> FWIW, I've tested my UCRT build on Microsoft's proprietary Windows, briefly, 
> and it starts up and appears to work. However, I cannot do so on a regular 
> basis.

I know.  Neither can I.  Which is why the basic requirement to have a
dedicated support person on board still stands.

> > The community of Emacs developers cannot allocate resources that don't
> > exist. And even when they do exist, the ability of the community to
> > redirect those resources is limited by the opinions and limitations of
> > the people whose resources need to be redirected.
> 
> One thing we can certainly stop doing is to discourage people from even 
> looking at stuff. Closing actual bugs as "wontfix" without a sensible 
> explanation, for example, seems counterproductive to me.

Which bugs where "closed as wontfix without a sensible explanation"?

> > I'm using MinGW and don't intend to install MinGW64 any time soon.
> 
> Maybe it's time to make that port unofficial, or at least to stop directing 
> people to it rather than the MinGW64 port.

We have been advertising MinGW64 (with MSVCRT) for a long time, see
nt/INSTALL.W64.  But since it doesn't support Windows versions older
than Vista (or maybe even that is not supported anymore), we also
advertise MinGW, which does.