From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Windows Build System - My final thoughts |
Date: | 2003-01-31 14:48:25 |
Message-ID: | 1044024505.4962.92.camel@camel |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:01, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> Dave, Lamar and Katie can cheer now 'cuze this is the last comment
> I'm going to make on this. All others will be ignored, probably.
>
> The one thing I haven't seen from Dave, Lamar or Katie on this is
> reputation. You're all for the PostgreSQL name going on it but I
> have yet to see any of you so sure of yourselves that you'd put
> your own name on it. The license allows it. Red Hat did it. I
> see no "PageSQL" or "KatieSQL" or even an "Oh-Win SQL" being offered
> up. Yet all three of you are advocating that the PostgreSQL stamp
> of approval should be immediately placed on it (ok, Lamar may not
> be as in favor as the Dave and Katie).
>
Oh-win SQL! Man that was great :-) If only all of your posts were so
witty...
> Without documented testing and sufficient warnings until enough
> history is banked, I don't think a native windows port should be
> given any kind of seal of approval. After that, what about keeping
> the code current? In a year or so will it suffer from bit-rot and
> be the source of complaints? Are there going to be security concerns
> surrounding it? Is there going to be a bunch of scrambling going on
> to put out a patch when the latest active-x bug hoses the data dir?
>
We already support postgresql on cygwin, and we know that's crap. Having
a native emulation can only improve that situation, so I don't see any
reason not to move in that direction. All of this "stamp of approval"
talk is really pointless at this juncture; no matter how much testing
has been done, none of it means a lick until the code is integrated into
the 7.4 branch. In the mean time, if some of the unix oriented guys want
to devise a suggested test plan that can be used to determine if we are
going to call the native windows support "production grade" or merely a
vast improvement over the cygwin developers version, well I bet the
windows folks would appreciate that. Even more so if someone runs those
tests against a linux box so that we have actual statistics to compare
against.
Robert Treat
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-01-31 14:57:25 | Re: [PATCHES] v7.2.4 bundled ... |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-01-31 14:13:18 | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |