2024-08-17 14:30 AEST by CVS Support - CVSNT 2.8.03 / CVS Suite 2024 will be the name of 2.8.01 compiled for Windows 
10/11 with VS2022.

Functionally it is the same as CVS Suite 2009 / CVSNT 2.8.01.

Same licensing (not the 2.8.02/Suite 2010 license)

The idea is that 2.8.04 will be 2.8.02 compiled for Windows 10/11 with VS2022.

I've no idea what to do with Linux though?

Maybe reserve 2.8.03 for RH9 and Ubuntu 24 LTS Oracular Oriole ?

2024-08-17 14:30 AEST by CVS Support - depends on bug 7788 - the vs2022 build

2024-08-18 22:50 AEST by CVS Support - rhel8 gcc version 8.5.0 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-15) (GCC)
rhel9 gcc version 11.4.1 20230605 (Red Hat 11.4.1-2) (GCC)

Ubuntu 22.04 also uses gcc 11

also see:
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/19458

Red Hat Primary compiler packages

    The following gcc packages are available as the default compiler:
        RHEL9 : gcc 11.x in app stream
        RHEL8 : gcc 8.x or gcc 9.x in app stream.
        RHEL7 : gcc 4.8.x
        RHEL6 : gcc 4.4.x
        RHEL5 : gcc 4.1.x
        RHEL4 : gcc 3.4.x
        RHEL3 : gcc 3.2.x
        DTS9 : gcc 9.1.x
        DTS8 : gcc 8.2.x
        DTS7 : gcc 7.2.x
        DTS6 : gcc 6.2.x
        DTS4 : gcc 5.2.x, 5.3.x
        DTS3 : gcc 4.9.x
        DTS2 : gcc 4.8.x
        DTS1 : gcc 4.7.x

2024-08-18 22:52 AEST by CVS Support - I'm still not sure this is a great idea. 

pro's:
- makes clear to customer this is a modern up to date release

con's:
- confusion about what is the most current version
- why is there no new functionality?

2024-08-19 10:48 AEST by CVS Support - see bug 5720 for full list of codenames.

2.8.03 will be Dayna

2024-08-19 11:02 AEST by CVS Support - Created an attachment (id=3768)
patch

Checking in version_no.h;
/usr/local/cvs/cvsnt/version_no.h,v  <--  version_no.h
new revision: 1.1.2.112.4.18.2.3; previous revision: 1.1.2.112.4.18.2.2
done

2024-08-19 11:38 AEST by CVS Support - An interesting idea would be to use new icons for this build.

Since it is targeting Windows 10 we should really be using higher resolution 
icons everywhere...

Or should we be using PNG icons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICO_(file_format)

see this summary:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/3244679

Windows XP uses 16, 32, 48-size icons, while Windows 7 (and presumably also 
Vista) also uses 256-size icons. All other intermediate icon sizes are ignored.

Note that the default desktop icon size in XP was 32x32, while in Windows 7 it 
is 48x48. As a consequence, for Windows 7 it is relatively important to have a 
48 icon. Otherwise, it is upscaled from a smaller icon, which may look quite 
ugly.


for windows 10: 
https://stackoverflow.com/q/40749785

you should use all PNG icons 16, 20, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42, 47, 48, 56, 60, 
63, 84, 256, but still include .ICO file with these sizes to support legacy 
experiences:

    16x16
    24x24
    32x32
    48x48
    256x256


The answer shows an interesting example of Firefox's Windows 10 PNG manifest.  
This could be especially important for things like WM/CVS Suite Studio

I'm going to post this same comment on bug 7788