# About Julia's development policy regarding Windows

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** windows\
**Created:** [April 12, 2025, 7:29pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011 "2025-04-12T19:29:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmiq](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmiq/32/18314_2.png) [@lmiq](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmiq)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 3:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/21 "2025-04-13T15:37:55Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> Reading the other comments in this thread I get the feeling that there is a denial of the problem. Everything is fine as it is.

I don’t see it that way. I think all your points are important and valid, and core developers are/will read this and consider them seriously. What maybe is drifting is the expectations on what can be done objectively in a short terms and by whom.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 3:48pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/22 "2025-04-13T15:48:56Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> There is no Wiki where things can be documented - one has to search different channels (Discourse, Slack, Reddit etc. to find answers. one can also not just add , update of for documentation. Instead for every docs change one would have to make pull requests in GitHub. This is a very high hurdle and that why obviously many users don’t do this. Everybody is happy with the info he got in one of the channels, but the next users with the some issue, will probably ask the same question again and active users have to answer the same questions again and again.

- When I don’t feel like opening a PR, sometimes I open an issue instead.
- Is there something specific you found lacking regarding the documentation?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:05pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/23 "2025-04-13T16:05:59Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> It is the first item in the [release announcement](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/v1.12.0-beta1/NEWS.md).

You’re right, it’s not clear enough from that note that the feature is still experimental. Opened two new issues:

> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/58094>
>
> I'd prepend the line with \`Experimental: \`
> 
> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/b…lob/772745beb7d71a68960733b866448d3630b8266f/HISTORY.md?plain=1#L7-L8
> 
> A new user recently complained on Discourse about the trimming, not knowing it was experimental. Indeed the paragraph only implicitly makes it clear the feature is experimental, due to the module \`Base.Experimental\` being involved.

> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/58095>
>
> Like issue #58094, but for v1.12 NEWS.md.
> 
> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/bl…ob/backports-release-1.12/NEWS.md?plain=1#L7-L8

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nhz2](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nhz2/32/44428_2.png) [@nhz2](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nhz2)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:21pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/24 "2025-04-13T16:21:56Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> There are no rules and checklists how a release is made

From what I can tell the main “checklist” for a release is in the milestone section on github [GitHub · Where software is built](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/milestone/47)

But I also not sure why a beta version was released when there are still known release blocking issues.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![albheim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/albheim/32/34660_2.png) [@albheim](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/albheim)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/25 "2025-04-13T16:24:29Z")

</div>

> [@goerz](#):
>
> I’m curious: after Julia has been installed in the recommended way, is it possible to double-click a `.jl` file to run it as a script?

For me the default program for a `.jl` file was notepad. I can change the default program to be the julia executable though and then it works to just double-click the file to run it. Though the window closes as soon as the program finishes, but I’m sure you can solve that for a GUI somehow.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> I don’t see the need to become a customer of the Microsoft store. I have no time and will to read its long [terms and conditions](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/publish/store-policies).

I do agree with this sentiment, so it is nice to hear that you managed to get it working without 🙂

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> There is no Wiki

While not exactly what you are asking for, I vaguely remember the Julia discourse got support for “wiki” threads or something like that a few years back, where everyone could collaboratively edit a post on a topic? While I don’t love the discourse search, I think a lot of good information is already documented here and is often not too hard to find. So if you find a topic lacking, maybe trying such a thread to gather all information for other users could be one way to go?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PetrKryslUCSD](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/petrkryslucsd/32/215825_2.png) [@PetrKryslUCSD](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/PetrKryslUCSD)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:39pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/26 "2025-04-13T16:39:45Z")

</div>

See also the one-click (actually, a double-click) install of VS Code/VS Codium + Julia on Windows:

> **[GitHub - PetrKryslUCSD/VSCode\_Julia\_portable: Portable Julia running in VSCode](https://github.com/PetrKryslUCSD/VSCode_Julia_portable)**
>
> Portable Julia running in VSCode

> **[GitHub - PetrKryslUCSD/VSCodium\_Julia\_portable: VSCodium running Julia](https://github.com/PetrKryslUCSD/VSCodium_Julia_portable)**
>
> VSCodium running Julia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eben60](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/eben60/32/13475_2.png) [@Eben60](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Eben60)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/27 "2025-04-13T17:09:29Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> I don’t see the need to become a customer of the Microsoft store. I have no time and will to read its long [terms and conditions](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/publish/store-policies).

On the one side, as I wrote recently in a different topic,

> [@Julia won't open after updating MacOS "julia” can’t be opened because Julia is not allowed.."](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-wont-open-after-updating-macos-julia-can-t-be-opened-because-julia-is-not-allowed/126199/18):
>
> The instructions are pretty clear: “Use `juliaup`”
> 
> Those who chose different pathway after such a clear recommendation are either experts knowing what they are doing (for those adding to PATH is optional), or newbies looking for trouble and gathering experience the hard way. Well, their own choice.

On the other side, the instructions on the download page are not perfect, for macOS as well as for Windows.

Where should I go to make a PR?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 5:10pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/28 "2025-04-13T17:10:50Z")

</div>

> [@Eben60](#):
>
> Where should I go to make a PR?

> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/www.julialang.org/blob/main/downloads/index.md>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eben60](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/eben60/32/13475_2.png) [@Eben60](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Eben60)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 6:22pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/29 "2025-04-13T18:22:06Z")

</div>

Done:

> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/www.julialang.org/pull/2282>
>
> See discourse \[here\](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-…policy-regarding-windows/128011/17) and \[here\](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-wont-open-after-updating-macos-julia-can-t-be-opened-because-julia-is-not-allowed/126199) . It was also my experience, a colleague would first go to manual download despite my explicit recommendation to use juliaup.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ericphanson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ericphanson/32/215186_2.png) [@ericphanson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ericphanson)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 6:49pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/30 "2025-04-13T18:49:45Z")

</div>

> [@nhz2](#):
>
> But I also not sure why a beta version was released when there are still known release blocking issues.

That’s exactly the difference between a beta and a release candidate. If there were no known blocking issues, it would be a release candidate (which would then become a release unless issues were found). A beta is just a chance to more easily try out the new version before it’s fully ready.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GunnarFarneback](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gunnarfarneback/32/1827_2.png) [@GunnarFarneback](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/GunnarFarneback)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 6:52pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/31 "2025-04-13T18:52:30Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> `PackageCompiler` is a core feature of Julia because to be able to use Julia for other applications, you must be able to make either an app or a library out of your Julia modules. Now, after many [hours of trying](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-to-create-standalone-applications-for-windows-with-a-ui-in-julia-1-11-or-1-12/127823/27), I am not able to get it to work under Windows). So I cannot use Julia for my purpose.

For the record the multi-threading bug you ran into is not specific to Windows, and is equally problematic on Linux.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uwestoehr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uwestoehr/32/216201_2.png) [@uwestoehr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uwestoehr)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 9:42pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/32 "2025-04-13T21:42:40Z")

</div>

> [@nsajko](#):
>
> In contrast, currently you’re just venting at the other users/volunteers here, which is rude TBH.

I think you got my point: it is not about a particular bug, it is about the development policy.  
How are things developed, how is the QA handled, how is the release process, where are the checklists to review PRs, the announcement texts, test results etc.?:

### Proposal for better development policy

- PRs sent in for the components of the main [Julia GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaLang) are only merged, if they will work on all supported OSes
- there is a checklist for releases, containing
  - tests for all supported OSes
  - all items in the NEWS.md file are tested
  - first if all checks are OK, a release will be made

- there is a definition of what a beta release should be (in what state and what should be the outcome of the release), the same for release candidates.
- if an item in News.md is reported not to work, no release is done, until this is fixed or removed from the news/announcement.
- All checklists (release and QA) are publicly visible and are created together with the Julia community

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uwestoehr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uwestoehr/32/216201_2.png) [@uwestoehr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uwestoehr)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 9:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/33 "2025-04-13T21:53:12Z")

</div>

> [@GunnarFarneback](#):
>
> the multi-threading bug you ran into is not specific to Windows, and is equally problematic on Linux.

I see now, but is is a good example of the development policy problems of Julia. In that case:

- there is a regression bug in one of the core components of Julia (worked in 1.10.x, fails in 1.11.x)
- the bug is reported and verified [since months](https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl/issues/990), but new Julia 1.11 releases were made
- instead of fixing existing regressions a beta of a newer Julia release was made.

There is obviously (my opinion) a QA issue in the development policy. If the release team would say, we release despite the known regression and explain this, OK, there might be reasons. But known regressions must be part of release announcements. But neither in a release announcement nor the bug report, there is info why new releases were made before fixing the regression.

Of course, everybody has a different understanding of QA should be done, but I cannot find any info of QA is done in Julia. I mean there is a release team and they must follow any kind of QA/checklis/release procedures.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 10:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/34 "2025-04-13T22:04:42Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> there is a regression bug in one of the core components of Julia

This was already pointed out: it’s not a “core component”, or a component at all, it’s just a package in the ecosystem.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GeorgeGkountouras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/77aa72/32.png) [@GeorgeGkountouras](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/GeorgeGkountouras)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 10:30pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/35 "2025-04-13T22:30:14Z")

</div>

Imo, PackageCompiler.jl should be core functionality and prioritized accordingly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uwestoehr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uwestoehr/32/216201_2.png) [@uwestoehr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uwestoehr)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 11:27pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/36 "2025-04-13T23:27:18Z")

</div>

> [@nsajko](#):
>
> Is there something specific you found lacking regarding the documentation?

As I wanted to trigger a discussion about the policy not a specific case, let me give you an example:

I needed to install Julia for all users of a computer. As of now there is a bug in the Julia installer. Instead of opening a new forum thread and posting my workaround/solution, I would have quickly changed this page:

> **[Windows - Platform Specific Instructions for Official Binaries](https://julialang.org/downloads/platform/#windows)**
>
> All official Julia binaries produce portable installations. Once installed, the directory in which Julia was installed can be moved to a different location on the same computer, or even to a different computer. | Official website for the Julia...

if it were a Wiki page. Then it is directly documented and other can benefit from it. Once a fix is available, I or another one can change the Wiki page.  
But `https://julialang.org/downloads/platform/#windows` is not a Wiki. No user can “just” add or update info. Moreover, one first had to search around who to inform and on what channel. And making maybe in the end a PR for a documentation is hefty. Meaning making the PR is much more work than to edit directly a Wiki page.

As I mentioned, I was part of FreeCAD’s core team and can tell that the Wiki improved the docs a lot. The docs are kept up to date by a community, basic users can just make a change, and we also use it for QA.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uwestoehr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uwestoehr/32/216201_2.png) [@uwestoehr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uwestoehr)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 11:30pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/37 "2025-04-13T23:30:22Z")

</div>

> [@nsajko](#):
>
> it’s not a “core component”

To cite myself:

[https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-to-create-standalone-applications-for-windows-with-a-ui-in-julia-1-11-or-1-12/127823/45?u=uwestoehr](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/how-to-create-standalone-applications-for-windows-with-a-ui-in-julia-1-11-or-1-12/127823/45)

That might sound rude but why do we discuss what a core component is rather than how to improve the QA process and the development policy?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![giordano](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/giordano/32/2166_2.png) [@giordano](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/giordano)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 12:03am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/38 "2025-04-14T00:03:48Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> if it were a Wiki page.

Did you notice the floating pencil-shaped button in the bottom right corner of the page?

 ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/original/3X/4/3/43f6561943e5a5ffbdde59b66fefcdcb7e1ad5e5.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![goerz](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/goerz/32/3269_2.png) [@goerz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/goerz)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 1:03am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/39 "2025-04-14T01:03:34Z")

</div>

Sorry, but you are getting _way_ off base here!

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> > [@ufechner7](#):
> >
> > Not so sure which installer you are talking about,
> 
> The [official one](https://julialang.org/downloads/#manual_download).

You missed the top of that page. The official installer is `juliaup`. The downloaded binaries are very much secondary (but they also do, in fact, work)

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> After installing Julia, there is no command `juliaup`

You got it wrong. You install `juliaup`, and `juliaup` installs Julia.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> And then I should become a customer of Microsoft and its store just to be able to use Julia.

You can’t seriously make the argument that “Windows is the most important platform” and then turn around to say “I don’t want to use the Microsoft store”. But even then, there _are_ [alternative installation instructions that bypass the store](https://github.com/JuliaLang/juliaup?tab=readme-ov-file#windows) (with lots of caveats, so not supported/recommended).

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> I needed to install Julia for all users of a computer. As of now there is a bug in the Julia installer.

That is not a bug. That’s something that’s deliberately not supported. Julia is installed in user space on _all_ its supported problems. That’s a question of security, plus, the majority of Julia users need to install Julia on systems where they do not have admin/root access (like HPC clusters).

So, with all of the above, you are just not following the installation instructions, and you are going out of your way to use unsupported setups. I’m not sure why. It makes it pretty hard to take your concerns seriously.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> The first case is for example that _juliac_ hardcodes a `cc` compiler. With a proper policy, someone would have said in the PR revision process to think also about Windows

Yeah, maybe. But I’m not 100% sure that’s not deliberate:

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> The second case is that _PackageCompler_ that always downloads MinGW-w64, also if it is already installed and in the PATH variable. Because the development is not done with having the different OSes in mind.

I’m pretty sure that’s not the reason. Julia packages that use binary artifacts completely package those artifacts. We have [an entire system built around that](https://docs.binarybuilder.org/stable/). Using some binary that may already be on the system and that may or may not be compatible is a recipe for disaster.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> the bug is reported and verified [since months](https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl/issues/990), but new Julia 1.11 releases were made

It’s not a bug in _Julia_ so why should a Julia release have any relation to a bug in `PackageCompiler`? (I do agree that is a nasty bug, and I’m sorry you had the bad luck of running into it. And yes, it should be fixed sooner rather than later, but I can’t exactly make demands on the developers of `PackageCompiler`). Even if the development team of `PackageCompiler` has a large overlap with the core developers of Julia, it’s a completely separate package with a separate version number and release process.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Ah, stupid me, how could I assume, [PackageCompiler.jl](https://juliaregistries.github.io/General/packages/redirect_to_repo/PackageCompiler) a package that is hosted in the official [Julia repository](https://github.com/JuliaLang), meaning it has the same status as [Pkg.jl](https://juliaregistries.github.io/General/packages/redirect_to_repo/Pkg), Juliaup and Julia itself, is production-ready. That tells a lot about how QA is handled in the Julia project.
> 
> That might sound rude

It not just might sound rude, it most definitely _is_ rude. Maybe take some time to actually get familiar with the community and Julia’s development process before making these kinds of demands on “QA”.

[Other comments on this thread](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/9) have pretty conclusively demonstrated that installing Julia on Windows works just fine. Your issues are mostly of your own making.

`PackageCompiler` is NOT a core component. Your insistence that it should should make some kind of QA guarantees in relation to Julia releases in completely unfounded. That’s just not how open source works.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> > [@goerz](#):
> >
> > I was not under the impression that `--trim` is intended to be complete
> 
> It is the first item in the [release announcement](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/v1.12.0-beta1/NEWS.md).  
> And of course I expect every entry in the NEWS.md file to have been tested before a beta version is released.

The release notes say that a `--trim` flag was added. It doesn’t say anything about the scope of that feature or how stable it is. I don’t even think were at the point where the full functionality of `--trim` is fully specified, so I don’t know what “tested” is supposed to mean on this context.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> Of course, everybody has a different understanding of QA should be done, but I cannot find any info of QA is done in Julia. I mean there is a release team and they must follow any kind of QA/checklis/release procedures.

I can assure you there are. Development is organized on GitHub, and a lot of discussion happens on Slack. There are also regular public meetings, which you are welcome to join if you want to engage with Julia’s core development. But I also would point out that Julia is an open source project. There are over 4000 open issues. You expect these to be closed before a new release is made?

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> there is a checklist for releases, containing
> 
> - tests for all supported OSes
> - all items in the NEWS.md file are tested
> - first if all checks are OK, a release will be made

I don’t know about “checklists” (you insistence that such a thing should exist seems rather idiosyncratic to me), but Julia has extensive automated testing and very high levels of QA. In fact, they not only verify that the tests in the Julia tests pass, [they even test the entire ecosystem of registered packages for regressions](https://github.com/JuliaCI/NanosoldierReports).

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> All checklists (release and QA) are publicly visible and are created together with the Julia community

Julia’s development is completely public on GitHub.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> Beta versions are released without the new features of a version were tested on the 3 main OSes

Nonsense. The CI for Julia runs on all supported platforms.

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> There are no rules and checklists how a release is made

Not true. There are no releases made with failing CI runs.

Your demands on Julia’s development process are unwarranted. I can assure you that Julia works just fine for a great many computational scientists. There’s definitely room for improvement, and I’m not denying that you’ve raised some valid issues. But at this point, we’ve left the road of reasonable input.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![danielwe](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/danielwe/32/35657_2.png) [@danielwe](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/danielwe)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 1:08am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011/40 "2025-04-14T01:08:58Z")

</div>

> [@uwestoehr](#):
>
> how to improve the QA process

I understand your frustration. However, I’m not sure this is a process problem. Julia runs the test suites of the entire ecosystem of packages before every new release of the language to assess if the changes introduce any breakage (look at [PkgEval.jl](https://github.com/JuliaCI/PkgEval.jl) and [Nanosoldier.jl](https://github.com/JuliaCI/Nanosoldier.jl) to see how this is done). The unfortunate fact here is that PackageCompiler.jl’s test suite doesn’t test compilation in multithreaded julia processes, so this bug slipped through the cracks. The remedy is to add such tests to the PackageCompiler.jl test suite. I have a hard time seeing how a different process would have helped as long as the crucial test was missing. I agree that this breakage event was very unfortunate and I hope some qualified devs find the time to fix the bug and add the concomitant tests.

[Previous page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011.md?page=3)