Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:53:26 Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I do not think this is an appropriate attitude for a committer to take.
>
>> I would like to have this clarified, as I keep running afoul of it.
>
> My two cents: I don't expect you to fix the MSVC scripts if you are
> uninterested in doing so. But it would be appropriate to post a note
> to -hackers when you make a build system change that is going to need
> to be reflected in those scripts. The people who do care about MSVC
> should not have to find that out by watching the buildfarm and then
> trying to reverse-engineer the cause of a failure.
As one of said people, I think that's perfectly reasonable. It'd make it
a lot easier to get a heads-up, or just the version of the patch right
before a commit to add it to. Some people do that, some don't - it would
be muchos helpful if all did.
I don't expect unix hackers to always patch the msvc system as needed -
given that you don't have a way to test it, and no experience how those
tools work. (I know Tom has made a number of smaller fixes in them, but
it's mostly been around the areas of smaller changes, not actually
adding new stuff, for exmaple)
If I had warning this time, for example, I could've said that I for one
can't fix that for a while, because my msvc build system is all geared
up around the git server (because it's so much easier to get the stuff
in and out of the VM when cross-deveoping than with CVS and the crippled
commandline toolchain on windows). And since that one is currently not
working properly, I need to find a different way to get the code in
there unless someone can fix it :-(
Hopefully someone else can pick it up this time around? If not, I'll do
it as soon as I get things back up and working in my env.
//Magnus