Folks,
While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a
platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I
think it's time we did a little pruning.
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the
first in what I'd picture as a set of base
On 9/22/10 1:17 PM, David Fetter wrote:
While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a
platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I
think it's time we did a little pruning.
It is unclear to me what problem you're trying to solve.
--
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:17:54PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a
platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I
think it's time we did a little pruning.
We can start by supporting only platforms git
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:17 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a
platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I
think it's time we did a little pruning.
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on,
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the
first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.
Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
What say?
No. :-)
I'd be fine with dropping support for ancient platforms if it lets us
do something cool that we can't otherwise do, but there's no value in
doing it just because we can.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On 09/22/2010 04:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetterda...@fetter.org wrote:
What say?
No. :-)
I'd be fine with dropping support for ancient platforms if it lets us
do something cool that we can't otherwise do, but there's no value in
doing it just
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being
the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.
Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Runs git is actually
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:58 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being
the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.
Sounds
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:02:18PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:58 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:08 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring
functionalities for *in*clusion.
I repeat:
Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal?
I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8.
Joshua
On Sep 22, 2010, at 2:08 PM, David Fetter wrote:
It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring
functionalities for *in*clusion.
Passes all tests.
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8.
... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for
that. If you don't want plperl, you can build from a tarball with
no perl at all.
Given the project history, I can't see us turning
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8.
... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for
that. If you don't want plperl, you can build from a tarball with
no
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8.
... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for
15 matches
Mail list logo
