Re: what's going on with lapwing?

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgbuildfarm(at)rjuju(dot)net
Subject: Re: what's going on with lapwing?
Date: 2025-03-07 14:34:05
Message-ID: Z8sD3TCbujXmItdt@jrouhaud
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:52:26AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:03 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Honestly, it's been years of people complaining on one thing or another about
> > lapwing without ever asking for a change. Was it really hard to ask "can you
> > remove the -Werror it's not useful anymore" the first time it caused extra
> > work? Instead I have to guess what people want. So after a few complaints I
> > removed that flag. And now after a few more complaints I turned it off. If
> > that's not what you want, well too bad but that's on you, not me.
>
> This is actually much harder for me as a committer than you might
> guess. How is an individual committer working on an individual issue
> supposed to know that removing -Wall is the right thing vs. fixing the
> warning in some way?

That may be true in general, but I don't think it was the case here.

The "repeated extra work" here was replacing {0} with {{0}} or something like
that, due to a compiler bug. It was outlined multiple time.

The problem is easy: either doing that is so much pain that the -Werror should
be removed, or the odds of that compiler and/or 32bits architecture revealing
an actual bug is high enough that it's a small price to pay.

I was fine either way, and I didn't think it was my choice to make since I'm
not the one responsible to deal with it. But none of that happened and instead
people just chose to the easy solution of complaining about it for the sake of
complaining without giving an actual solution.

Anyway it seems that the only wanted use for this animal now would be to test
REL_13_STABLE which will be EOL in a few months now, and I don't see the point
of dealing more complaining just for that given how much activity is going to
happen on that branch, so as I said I turned it off.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2025-03-07 14:35:04 Re: Add arbitrary xid and mxid to pg_resetwal
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2025-03-07 14:33:43 Re: [PATCH] New predefined role pg_manage_extensions