Proposal for discussion - remove all Windows-port cruft

[Mark Atwood]

Thanks for the update.

Simplifying those bad spots is more important than keeping code we don't
know works in an OS that nobody can recommend as a good time server.

Remove it. Carefully. Try not to cackle maniacally too much while you do.

..m

On Sat, May 14, 2016, 4:26 AM Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:

> Mark Atwood <fallenpegasus at gmail.com>:
> > it sounds like there is no cruft getting in the way of complexity
> > headaround or reduction.  leave it be.
>
> Unfortunately, your premise is not correct; Hal's report was
> incomplete.  There are substantial amounts of Windows cruft in some of
> the trickiest places outside the port directories, notably the
> worker-thread code for async DNS lookup and the network-plumbing
> hairball.
>
> The reason I am pushing on this now is that I'm still casting around
> for ways to simplify the hairball to the point where I can really
> grasp it. Complexity headaround is the exact issue.
>
> Removing the Windows cruft won't completely solve the problem, but any
> complexity reductions we can get are good.  Enough of them might get us
> to where my head doesn't hurt when I look at that code.
> --
>                 <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160514/0bd95caf/attachment.html>