Build for Classic

[Robert Brenstein]

>I'm with Richard on this one. I can't imagine any features in a post
>2.6version of Rev you'd *NEED* for Classic. Of course, I may be
>missing some.
>
>best,
>Chipp

It is not only about new features. What about having to keep two 
different versions of Rev as a developer? As Enterprise customer, I'd 
rather use the same version for all my development work instead of 
switching depending on the project. What about people who don't 
upgrade (and thus give money to RR) on that account? Have you noticed 
how many people mention staying still with 2.6.1 (makes me wonder how 
many more don't mention that).

RR kept saying that newer version for OS9 is coming, for whatever 
that is worth, but haven't delivered. Just like you want RR to fix 
your favorite bugs, Linux users want to get Linux version up to date, 
people who are stuck with OS9 want to get a newer version. The fact 
that my favorite bug does not affect you can't be a reason for RR 
ignoring it, and this is what some people seem to be saying.

Ending full OS9 support would be easier if RR did proper branching of 
their releases, so they could continue to fix critical bugs in 
whatever is the last OS9 release. But they do a single-trunk 
releases, so to get any bug fixes we have to upgrade. We don't expect 
RR to support OS9 for ever, but it is in RR's interest to leave it at 
a feature-rich and low-bug release, particularly if they stay with a 
single-trunk release model.

Robert