Difference between revisions of "Talk:Documentation/Building Guide/Building on Windows with MinGW"
(Light Copy Editing complete.) |
(→Answer to TJ: new section) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Let me know when you want to add this to the TOC (with a "(draft)" note?) --[[User:TJFrazier|TJ]] 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | Let me know when you want to add this to the TOC (with a "(draft)" note?) --[[User:TJFrazier|TJ]] 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Answer to TJ == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I do not want this page to substitute the Windows build guide. | ||
| + | MinGW port is a technical alternative to Microsoft Visual C++ but it is not intended to be a complete substitute. | ||
| + | So the build guide for MinGW should be a supplement to Windows build guide. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As to Section 1.4, I would like to have more comments from experts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would like to get the document to be reviewed by many people. | ||
| + | So, I think it should be in TOC right away. | ||
Revision as of 09:53, 4 October 2009
Light Copy Editing complete
I did a little work on several sections, just minor spelling and grammar fixes.
Points of further interest:
- Added template call to DraftPage. You can remove it whenever you like.
- Section 1.4, "versions and problems in compiler and linker", needs work. Regrettably, I am not sure enough of the information to rearrange it with any degree of confidence. It needs to be in several paragraphs, with possibly some short bullet lists.
Question: do you intend this page as a replacement for the current "Building on Windows", or a supplement to it?
Let me know when you want to add this to the TOC (with a "(draft)" note?) --TJ 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Answer to TJ
I do not want this page to substitute the Windows build guide. MinGW port is a technical alternative to Microsoft Visual C++ but it is not intended to be a complete substitute. So the build guide for MinGW should be a supplement to Windows build guide.
As to Section 1.4, I would like to have more comments from experts.
I would like to get the document to be reviewed by many people. So, I think it should be in TOC right away.
