| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: renaming configure.in to configure.ac |
| Date: | 2020-07-16 15:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3359118.1594913055@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:45:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should do some pro-active testing, rather than just waiting for
>> 2.70 to get dropped on us? God knows how long it will be until 2.71.
> Sounds good. A cheap option would be to regenerate with 2.70, push that on a
> Friday night to see what the buildfarm thinks, and revert it on Sunday night.
We'd have to rename configure.in as per $subject; but AFAIK that works
with extant autoconf, so we could just do it and leave it that way,
figuring that it'll have to happen eventually.
More ambitiously, we could just adopt 2.69b in HEAD and see what happens,
planning to revert only if things break. The cost to that is that
committers who want to commit configure.ac changes would have to install
2.69b. But they'd be having to install 2.70 whenever we move to that,
anyway, so I'm not sure that's a big cost.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-07-16 15:36:29 | Re: renaming configure.in to configure.ac |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-07-16 15:22:22 | Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement For Copy From Binary Files |