Re: renaming configure.in to configure.ac

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:45:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > It was mentioned elsewhere in passing that a new Autoconf release might
>> > be coming. That one will warn about the old naming "configure.in" and
>> > request "configure.ac". So we might want to rename that sometime.
>> > Before we get into the specifics, I suggest that all interested parties
>> > check whether buildfarm scripts, packaging scripts, etc. need to be
>> > adjusted for the newer name.
>>
>> Along the same line, I read at [1]
>>
>> Because it has been such a long time, and because some of the changes
>> potentially break existing Autoconf scripts, we are conducting a
>> public beta test before the final release of version 2.70. Please
>> test this beta with your autoconf scripts, and report any problems you
>> find to the Savannah bug tracker:
>>
>> 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.

Instead of doing this on the master branch, would it be worth defining a
namespace for branches that the buildfarm tests in addition to master
and REL_*_STABLE?

In the Perl world we have this in the form of smoke-me/* branches, and
it's invaluable to be able to test things across many platforms without
breaking blead (our name for the main development branch).

- ilmari
--
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
the mainstream press' sense at least. - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
to a mainstream media article. - Calle Dybedahl