On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 01:06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.
I guess the most likely one would be me, but not really. My perl-fu is
well below this level, so I will happily +1 whatever you more
experienced perl guys say :-) I don't see a big problem with a couple
of more files - it's not like we're going to support 20 different
versions of VS anyway, once we get to 4 i'm sure the earliest one is
well out of support already and can be removed. But in summary I'd
vote for whatever matches the "general perl pest practices" at this
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2011-12-01 09:09:06|
|Subject: Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-12-01 07:16:00|
|Subject: Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into