Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't understand why people are wasting time worrying about a few > > files resurected in CVS to assist Win32. > > Because this approach incurs a long-term cost (CVS storage) to buy a > short-term benefit (Windows developers might not need flex&bison). > The long-term cost is not trivial --- if you look at the CVS history > for the short interval that we kept these files in CVS, you will see > lots of five-thousand-line diffs corresponding to trivial changes in > the gram.y source. We abandoned that approach for very good reasons. > > It was already pointed out that Windows users wouldn't get any benefit > at all unless they installed a CVS client. Surely if they can do that, > they can install flex&bison too. > > We decided years ago that the minimum requirement to use our CVS sources > on Unix systems was the ability to run flex and bison locally (and we've > not had much patience with people running old versions of same, either). > I don't see the argument why people helping to develop a cutting-edge > Windows port should be expected to be less competent than every single > Unix CVS user. (Other than the fact that they're using Windows in the > first place of course ;-)))
I already said I am not updating the derived files unless we have to make a Win32 fix for it. The CVS branch is only going to be active until we start 7.5 development. Marc, maybe you better make me a separate CVS tree for Win32, rather than branch. There are too many people who's desire for perfect extends even to the CVS branches. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
