Re: vista

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vista
Date: 2006-09-19 16:40:15
Message-ID: 20060919164015.GC1789@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 05:11:54PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > Perhaps many of the core developers don't care if windows users take
> > the project seriously?
>
> Somehow I doubt that given that I was invited to join core precisely
> because of my work on the Windows distro. I would think that implies
> that at least 50% of the other members think the port is important.

Indeed. The people in core are not going to stand in the way of a good
patch that will fix a problem for windows. But neither are they going
to spend their own time debugging a platform they have no experience
with.

At the end of the day any problems with Vista are going to have to be
fixed by people with the OS, compiler, debugging expertise and time to
do it. The fact is that most people here don't have that. The same
criteria applies to every other platform.

So basically, anyone out there who meets the above criteria? Now is the
time to show it.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

  • Re: vista at 2006-09-19 16:11:54 from Dave Page

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-09-19 16:48:10 Re: vista
Previous Message Chris Browne 2006-09-19 16:15:40 Re: vista

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-19 16:40:28 Re: Getting rid of cmin and cmax
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-19 16:36:34 Re: advisory locks (was: 8.2 beta blockers)