On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 07:09:08PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-06-24 13:03:37 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > What I'm hearing is that you see two options, (1) personally authoring > > e.g. sparcv8 code or (2) purging the source tree of sparcv8 code before > > submitting the patch that would otherwise change it. I favor middle ground > > that lets minor platforms pay their own way. Write your changes with as > > little effort as you wish toward whether they run on sparcv8. If they break > > sparcv8, then either (a) that was okay, or (b) a user will show up with a > > report and/or patch, and we'll deal with that. > > Sounds sensible to me. But we should document such platforms as not > being officially supported in that case.
It is usually safe to make the documentation match the facts. > > If a change has the potential to make some architectures give wrong > > answers only at odd times, that's a different kind of problem. For > > that reason, actively breaking Alpha is a good thing. > > Not sure what you mean with the 'actively breaking Alpha' statement? > That we should drop Alpha? Yes: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozhgv_gowyfvcryetihpwnttk1dyea-o3f5+pue3tw...@mail.gmail.com -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
