From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Al Sutton <al(at)alsutton(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Postgres development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted |
Date: | 2003-01-21 18:45:50 |
Message-ID: | 20030121103820.L81563-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote:
> I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the
> code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more
> unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract
> existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch
> as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the
> oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements.
The problem is that when either side (unix developer or windows developer)
wants to do anything that changes the build procedure, the other side
breaks until someone makes the appropriate changes on the other build.
Unless some committer is going to commit to looking over patches to dsp
files and making makefile changes and vice versa or we were to require
that anyone that wants to change build procedure must make both sets of
changes, I'd think this is going to be a mess. And in the latter case, I
think you're going to lose developers as well.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-21 20:11:51 | Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE AS/SELECT INTO |
Previous Message | Al Sutton | 2003-01-21 18:06:26 | Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted |