From: | Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
Date: | 2016-08-18 20:02:04 |
Message-ID: | CAPfS4Zx-NtkmN3_eE0UJW9r_4qFjx9GgEzB5=4sKnimhaM5tAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom,
>> I ask because I'm curious if/how someone in Yury's situation could
>> predict which minimum version of CMake must be supported in order for
>> his patch to be accepted. (And if he accepts my offer to pitch in,
>> I'll actually need that particular detail.)
>
> well I personally think the level to meet would be that all the systems
> on the buildfarm that can build -HEAD at the time the patch is proposed
> for a commit should be able to build using the new system with whatever
> cmake version is available in those by default (if it is at all).
I see. In other projects I've worked on, the configuration of a build
farm has been driven by some list of platforms that were considered
important to support.
Is that the case here as well? I.e., is the build-farm population
just a convenient proxy for some other source of information regarding
what platforms are important?
Apologies if my questions are so basic that I can find the answers
elsewhere. I'll happily follow any RTFM links.
Thanks again,
Christian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-18 20:03:38 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2016-08-18 19:57:50 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |