On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most
people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it
doesn't provide much
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most
people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it
doesn't provide much functionality.
I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality
On 9/4/13 11:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Maybe we should also badger cpluspluscheck into a state where it can be
run as part of a normal build if a c++ compiler was detected?
I think it misses vpath support and it might be dependant on some
bashims.
That might also be doable. If we could
On 03-09-2013 23:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most
people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it
doesn't provide much functionality.
It has its use (before each release) but I agree that it isn't used
during
On 2013-09-03 22:41:17 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most
people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it
doesn't provide much functionality.
I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most
people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it
doesn't provide much functionality.
I propose that we get rid of it and roll the
