Re: How much work is a native Windows application?

cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
>
> > cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> >> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real
> >> Win32 version. That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who
> >> is interested.
>
> > I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a
> > Windows port. The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.
>
> No, I don't think you understand.
>
> If you're planning to do a port, then _all_ changes are your
> responsibility. Nobody ought to need to change PostgreSQL in order for
> you to write a Windows port; that, in fact, would be a waste of time,
> having several people working on something that should probably be done
> by one person.

Without buy-in from the group, there is no point in me wasting my time doing
all the work necessary. I'm not interested in making Mark's special version of
PostgreSQL.

If we can agree on a strategy and a course, then it is worth doing. If all the
changes made fall on the floor because the group does not like them, then I
wasted my time. Got it?

Also, doing the Windows portions of the code will represent a significant
investment of my time. I'm not interested in doing a lot of work on a shoddy
project. If you ask the core group to put out a crappy version of PostgreSQL
for a UNIX, they would fight long and hard against it. Why should we be willing
to produce a crappy version for Windows, just because the people here don't
like Windows.

I don't care about Solaris, but I understand WHY it is important to make
PostgreSQL work well on it. I don't understand why the people in this group
don't see the same purpose for a Windows port. To be honest, I think a good
Windows port will do wonders for PostgreSQL's acceptance.