On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:25:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about
> >> the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known
> >> to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of
> >> discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24
> >> hours notice.
>
> What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not
> actual testing, I assume.
>
> > Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and
> > I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before
> > I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked.
>
> > If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the
> > patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the
> > answer, everyone's work will take more time.
>
> Leave it as-is. I agree with the upthread comment that we can revert
> the patch during beta (or even later than that), if anyone complains.
> Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a
> buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old
> uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI
> port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily,
> but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it.
Yes, it was an odd port that probably would have been removed five years
ago if I had not been using it, which I am no longer.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +