Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Date: 2008-07-29 16:24:59
Message-ID: 11873.1217348699@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I really don't understand Peter's objection here. This thread has
>> already consumed more person-time than I spent on applying the
>> back-patch.

> Well I certainly wouldn't expect us to feel obligated to spend much effort
> making 8.1 work with a new Redhat release, for example. We would just say 8.1
> is only supported on those systems it was supported on when it was released.

Well, it would certainly depend on how much effort was involved to make
it work. In this case, I drew the line at messing with autoconf ;-) ...
otherwise I might've tried to fix 7.4 as well.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2008-07-29 16:27:27 Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2008-07-29 16:09:58 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?