Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)
Date: 2006-06-23 16:48:00
Message-ID: 16545.1151081280@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Anyway, the lack of daily Cygwin builds is not permanent.

> There are several supported platforms not represented on the buildfarm -
> e.g. the one HPUX member has never actually reported any results.

Yeah, and this is not a good thing. Eventually I'd like to get to a
point where every platform we consider "supported" has regular buildfarm
reports. No more calls for port reports during beta periods --- beta
work should focus on functionality testing, not getting it to build.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2006-06-23 16:53:19 Re: checking on buildfarm member thrush
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-23 16:31:51 Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2