On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 01:06, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> >>> Some minor nitpicks: >>> >>> Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and >>> VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just >>> stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? >> >> We certainly don't *need* them. >> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different target >> file formats into different source files. In my opinion this makes it easier >> to find the code that is actually generating the files that get used in a >> specific build environment. >> While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not much >> more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and probably >> never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for generating the new >> file format which would significantly bloat up the code in Project.pm that >> currently contains the common code for generating the old file formats. >> > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this. I want to wrap this up ASAP so we > can get a VS2010 buildfarm member working.
I guess the most likely one would be me, but not really. My perl-fu is well below this level, so I will happily +1 whatever you more experienced perl guys say :-) I don't see a big problem with a couple of more files - it's not like we're going to support 20 different versions of VS anyway, once we get to 4 i'm sure the earliest one is well out of support already and can be removed. But in summary I'd vote for whatever matches the "general perl pest practices" at this time. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers