Re: back branches vs. VS 2008

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Date: 2011-01-03 19:59:30
Message-ID: AANLkTikymUr19wsq2K4JyfNQP_Ben-NphB_gL3+SsTRV@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 19:08, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I'm not going to maintain more than one buildfarm member doing MSVC, and and
>>> if we were to adopt your policy I would not be able to use a modern-ish
>>> version of the compiler/SDK and also build all the live branches.
>
>> Well, it's perfectly possible to have more tha none version of MSVC on
>> the machine.
>
>> And we're not going to be changing the version that's actually used
>> for the official binary builds, so all you'll accomplish then is to
>> have the buildfarm test something different form what we're shipping.
>
> Are you speaking for EDB on that?

He's not speaking *for* us, but he's absolutely right.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-03 20:04:27 Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-01-03 19:59:16 Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers