Re: WIP: About CMake v2

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: 2016-08-18 19:53:13
Message-ID: 57B61229.7040302@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/18/2016 09:42 PM, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for that information.
>
> Is there some document I can read that explains which platform
> versions (e.g., OpenBSD 5.3) are considered strongly supported?

well not sure we have very clear document on that - I would say that the
buildfarm is the most authoritative answer to that. So I think skimming
the buildfarm for the oldest and strangest platforms would be a good start.

>
> I ask because I'm curious if/how someone in Yury's situation could
> predict which minimum version of CMake must be supported in order for
> his patch to be accepted. (And if he accepts my offer to pitch in,
> I'll actually need that particular detail.)

well I personally think the level to meet would be that all the systems
on the buildfarm that can build -HEAD at the time the patch is proposed
for a commit should be able to build using the new system with whatever
cmake version is available in those by default (if it is at all).

Stefan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Convey 2016-08-18 19:55:20 Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-08-18 19:52:49 Re: WIP: About CMake v2