On 04/21/2017 09:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 22 Apr. 2017 4:23 am, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>     Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com
>     <mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>> writes:
>     > On 4/21/17 14:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>     >> I'll add a comment, but doing it in PostgresNode.pm would mean
>     jacana
>     >> (for instance) couldn't run any of the TAP tests. I'mm looking at
>     >> installing a sufficiently modern Test::Simple package (includes
>     >> Test::More and test::Build) there, but other oldish machines
>     could also
>     >> be affected.
>     > Or you could define note() as an empty function if it doesn't exist.
>     +1.  I'm really not at all happy with the prospect that every time
>     somebody adds a use of "note" to some new TAP test, we're going to
>     get a complaint later that that test no longer works on jacana.
>     We need to either decide that non-ancient Test::More is a hard
>     requirement for all the tests
> That seems like a no-brainer TBH. Why are we bothering with backwards
> compat with ancient versions of test frameworks? It seems like a
> colossal waste of time for no benefit.

OK, I have pushed a requirement for a minimum version of Test::More into
TestLib.pm, a better place for it than PostgresNode.pm as not all tests
use the latter.

jacana has been upgraded to use a sufficiently modern Test::More.



Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to