| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5 |
| Date: | 2009-07-02 17:13:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1433.1246554830@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a configure change to
> reject flex < 2.5.31, and waiting to see how much of the buildfarm goes
> red.
Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are
running in the configure output. A quick look shows that of the 45
members that have reported on HEAD in the past 2 days, 22 are running
2.5.4, which is a lot higher than I was expecting. Most of these are
the Solaris boxen, which I imagine can be updated fairly painlessly
since there are some of them that are already running something newer.
However I'm a bit worried about the situation for Windows --- does
anyone know whether a newer flex is readily available for Windows?
In any case it seems like it'd be prudent to prod the buildfarm owners
to update their flex *before* we pull the trigger...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-02 17:16:46 | Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-02 17:10:49 | Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5 |