Thank you for the replies. Please understand this is all from the point of an outsider who has not done much more than poke around in the server code to make some server mods. I am very aware this is your project and you can do what you like with it, and equally aware of the frustration that can result from lack of contributions. And finally my original post was meant largely to clarify some points in the original post, of which I now have a better understanding.
..."unstable and only for development and testing purposes" would mean that no stable releases would be made, which is what we intend to do in ~6 months.
Well, then, it quite clear to no longer support it in six months time if there are no new contributions, and no dev steps up to support it.
Of course it's not only the release of 10.6; 10.5 already made our live hard and the number of bug reports has been rising since then ... Nevertheless, quite a number of bugs have nothing to do with the new version of the OS.
This I did not realize, I was given the impression that the majority of troubles were due to 10.6.
It might be encouraging, but simply reversing your statement might also show the exact opposite; those reported bugs are just the tip of the iceberg, which means it's more rotten than we think it is.
A point well made.
Not officially supporting does not mean we're immediately going to trash the porting work that has already been done. We're just stopping to actively maintain/support it.
Well that is quite fair. My only additional suggestion was to continue the auto-build, which it sounds like you are saying is an ongoing more trouble that it is worth.
Also... what does a contribution mean? Someone who wrote a crappy patch to keep something compiling on his system which we then need to rewrite and retest or someone who fixed one of the known bugs in an elegant way that can be committed without modification?
Well of course I meant the latter, and now I see it sounds as if you have not had this for years. I have also seen the codebase is quite clean compared to some open source games, so I further understand your wishing to keep it that way
Why alienate only the people who do not have the vast resources to buy a new Mac? It's not like the PPC build is actually the most troublesome version; it's the Intel build that is generally causing problems for the porter; for example that issue that caused OpenTTD to not run on (some) Intel machines, which the developer couldn't reproduce and where we later found out it had something to do with the video card driver that was being used. That cost a lot of time to figure out. Furthermore the PPC build has been very valuable with fixing/finding Endianness issues.The fact that Apple dropped PPC and spun that news as "Faster, more reliable installation" and "Smaller footprint" makes me quite annoyed.
Well, to me as a Mac user of both PPC and Intel, since you plan to alienate all mac users anyway, if most of the problems were in the PPC version (which I now see is not the case), then it might have been better to maintain only the Intel version. But since you say most of the problems are with Intel, then perhaps the idea was not so relevant.
So thank you for clarifying, and I shall perhaps have a look through some of the bugs to see what can be done. (Is it the case that all bugs related to the mac port are marked with the [osx] prefix, or are there others as well?)