-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 17:44:52 +0000 Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> - --On Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10:09 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm really not
>>> too sure what the functional incompatibilities between versions are,
>>> but given the extent of line-by-line diffs I've seen in the output of
>>> even adjacent versions, this isn't a question I want to take lightly.
>>
>> Just curious, but isn't that something the buildfarm would be good for?
>> generate/commit a 6.1 version of configure, and see if any of hte buildfarm
>> environments break ... or am I missing something 'post-install' that could
>> be affected?
>
> Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of the
> build if they have one.
you lost me on that one ... Tom is hestitant about moving to 6.1 because we
don't know what the fall out will be ... since I imagine the fallout would be
in the configure/build stage, if we modified CVS to have a 6.1 configure script
in place, wouldn't the buildfarm servers not be a good means to test *if* there
is any fallout?
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHPdjx4QvfyHIvDvMRAj6AAJwO7SFyhCi0qdFANX/5pWt8dagWFACff82K
NbrLYsQF9JKIerV4DxPoljU=
=gvyw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----