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

Re: Branch 1.14?

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Jasmin Dizdarevic <jasmin(dot)dizdarevic(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Branch 1.14?
Date: 2011-06-15 07:14:30
Message-ID: BANLkTi=uVkfYqWdrsU9b7cnppSubdMfi2A@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 23:41 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> We don't tend to remove the old code as that can lead to painful
>> amounts of refactoring to make things look right afterwards. If you
>> feel so inclined though, go ahead and do some cleanup.
>>
>
> I don't see why we should remove old code that still works. That we say
> we don't "officially" support older versions than 8.2, that's one thing
> I would understand. Working on dropping code that should work to make
> sure no one can use it with older versions is something I can't
> understand.

Well we don't actually know that it does still work, as we haven't
tested it. I regularly find myself refactoring code for old versions
of Postgres because I need to add support for a new version, and if
it's something old like 7.3, it doesn't get tested.

Plus it make the code less readable, and harder to maintain.

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

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

In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-06-15 07:33:16
Subject: Re: Branch 1.14?
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-06-15 06:53:05
Subject: Re: Branch 1.14?

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