# 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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 40

<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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/about-julias-development-policy-regarding-windows/128011)._