Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Date: 2011-12-01 00:06:52
Message-ID: 4ED6C51C.6020601@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Some minor nitpicks:
>>
>> Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and 
>> VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not 
>> just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? 
> We certainly don't *need* them.
> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different 
> target file formats into different source files. In my opinion this 
> makes it easier to find the code that is actually generating the files 
> that get used in a specific build environment.
> While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not 
> much more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and 
> probably never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for 
> generating the new file format which would significantly bloat up the 
> code in Project.pm that currently contains the common code for 
> generating the old file formats.
>
>


Does anyone else have an opinion on this. I want to wrap this up ASAP so 
we can get a VS2010 buildfarm member working.

cheers

andrew



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2011-12-01 00:55:13
Subject: Re: Java LISTEN/NOTIFY client library work-around
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-12-01 00:01:50
Subject: Re: FlexLocks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group