| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
| Date: | 2007-11-16 18:11:40 |
| Message-ID: | 473DDD5C.6030207@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just curious, but isn't that something the buildfarm would be good
>> for? generate/commit a 6.1 version of configure, and see if any of
>> hte buildfarm environments break ... or am I missing something
>> 'post-install' that could be affected?
>
> Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of
> the build if they have one.
>
We are making a mountain out of a molehill here. We've managed to get
this right for years with very little fuss. Why make infrastructure to
handle a problem that is at most marginal? I have more pressing concerns
that building an autoconf step into buildfarm.
(And I share Tom's concern about version compatibility - the autoconf
team don't have a great record on that IIRC.)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-11-16 18:14:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2007-11-16 18:06:34 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-11-16 18:14:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2007-11-16 18:06:34 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |