Re: WIP: About CMake v2

From: Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: 2016-11-09 09:52:07
Message-ID: 06eb7b98-3d54-4cd1-8793-1e94a1510cd3@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> So this is really not open for negotiation. As Peter said upthread,
> what we are looking for in a CMake reimplementation is that it behaves
> exactly like the Autoconf version does. To the extent that you are unable
> or unwilling to duplicate that behavior, you increase the odds that
> we'll reject this work.
Who asking about negotiation? I just wanted an explanation for the clear
understanding and nothing more.
Now I know about reasons. Thanks.

regards
--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2016-11-09 09:58:58 Re: pgbench - allow backslash continuations in \set expressions
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2016-11-09 08:38:53 Re: Radix tree for character conversion