| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Date: | 2012-05-06 14:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 6365.1336314224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more.
>> It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few
>> years.
> I think it's better to force users of platforms like IRIX and BSD/OS,
> platforms which are obsolete according to any practical definition, to
> use earlier branches that presumably are known to have had a certain
> amount of testing.
If there are any such users, we should be trying to get them to provide
a buildfarm member, so that we can honestly say that the port works.
I see removal of the port files as a way to send an unmistakable signal
that we're not going to continue to guess about that. We can always put
back a given port if volunteers emerge to support it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-06 17:17:02 | Re: What is the current status of FOR UPDATE cursors ? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-05-06 13:04:18 | more possible dead ports cleanup |