If you do that you're liable to substantially increase the size of the ISO downloads.

As the team would like to increase the release cadence for the 0.4.x series, we have put up a release candidate for 0.4.1 that we would like the community to test. The wiki page for the testing can be found here: https://www.reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.1

Good luck.

That's the wrong approach to take. You don't give an artist a blank slate for proposals, you set down hard specifications that they need to fulfill, otherwise if what they come up with is not what you want or feel is usable, you run into potential personality issues wherein they get offended because...

The chances of us ever accepting 'generated' or 'auto-converted' code is effectively nil. Such code is extremely difficult to debug and look through because of how messy the resulting code is. And once you find a bug, the question becomes whether the bug was in the original code or due to the genera...

0.4.0 is already out of date, and we get ACPI from a third party.

erkinalp wrote:

We require any code that is considered for inclusion in ReactOS to be C or C++ and compilable by msvc and gcc/g++. Any driver written by rust is by definition disqualified.

Until GRust and Visual Rust is out.

Uh, no, we're still going to require code written in C or C++ only.

Unlikely to help us. We require any code that is considered for inclusion in ReactOS to be C or C++ and compilable by msvc and gcc/g++. Any driver written by rust is by definition disqualified. And I question whether kernel developers working in the industry would have any incentive to adopt rust.

We're working our way through a couple of different strategies. The spam that you're seeing is probably a consequence of us successfully locking down the wiki, which now has much stronger controls.

In the future I would recommend reading more carefully a post that resurrects a four year old topic. It might help in realizing that it's a copy/paste of a previous post and the poster itself was probably a spambot. Just saying.

We, what unix subsystem?

Unless you are a professional graphic artist with a portfolio of very competent designs and experience doing designs according to customer specifications, trying to do #4 does not help us in any way, shape, or form.

This issue keeps coming up and the answer has always been the same. The project does not possess the resources to actually develop and make use of a mascot, as such any proposals made here will not be acted upon.

That's not an actual roadmap, that's yet another proposal by someone in the team to try to get a discussion started on making an actual one. If past precedence is any indication this attempt will be no more successful than the last three attempts.

What roadmap? What mention of office suite?

Huh. Would not have expected that to work. At all.