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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2011-12-01 00:55:13 | Re: Java LISTEN/NOTIFY client library work-around |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-12-01 00:01:50 | Re: FlexLocks |