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 requirements.

What say?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Search Discussions

  • Josh Berkus at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    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.

    --
    -- Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://www.pgexperts.com
  • Kenneth Marshall at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    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 runs on, this being the
    first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.

    What say?

    Cheers,
    David.
    Given the amount of trouble I had to get a git for a Solaris 8
    system, I am not too keen on this definition for platform. PostgreSQL
    runs very well on the same system, along with SVN and CVS.

    Cheers,
    Ken
  • Joshua D. Drake at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    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, this being the
    first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.

    What say?
    I say that Bruce got Git to run on BSD/OS 4 or something like that. I
    suggest that it won't matter what we say :P

    JD
    Cheers,
    David.
    --
    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
    Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
    Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
    iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

    Remember to vote!
    Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
    --
    PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
    Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
    Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
    http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
  • Tom Lane at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    David Fetter 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
  • David Fetter at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
    David Fetter <david@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 not a bad proxy for "has modern developer
    tools."

    This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional
    requirements.

    Cheers,
    David.
    --
    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
    Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
    Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
    iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

    Remember to vote!
    Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
  • Joshua D. Drake at Sep 22, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    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 <david@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 not a bad proxy for "has modern developer
    tools."

    This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional
    requirements.
    David,

    Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I
    mean I am with you on the idea of reducing our supported platforms. I
    see no reason to support

    <Solaris 9
    <NetBSD in any form
    <FreeBSD <6
    <Any Linux not supported by its own community (e.g; FC9)
    <Irix
    <> SCO

    Note: I am not actually advocating this as much as stating my own
    personal opinion.

    Joshua D. Drake

    --
    PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
    Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
    Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
    http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
  • David Fetter at Sep 22, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    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 <david@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 not a bad proxy for "has modern developer
    tools."

    This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional
    requirements.
    David,

    Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I
    mean I am with you on the idea of reducing our supported platforms. I
    see no reason to support

    <Solaris 9
    <NetBSD in any form
    <FreeBSD <6
    <Any Linux not supported by its own community (e.g; FC9)
    <Irix
    <> SCO

    Note: I am not actually advocating this as much as stating my own
    personal opinion.

    Joshua D. Drake
    It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring
    functionalities for *in*clusion.

    Cheers,
    David.
    --
    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
    Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
    Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
    iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

    Remember to vote!
    Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
  • Joshua D. Drake at Sep 22, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    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 D. Drake

    --
    PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
    Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
    Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
    http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
  • Tom Lane at Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@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 a dependency
    we just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon.

    Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean
    "gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl. And CVS,
    which will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git. But I'm
    not going to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability
    bug report without having set up a buildfarm animal first.

    regards, tom lane
  • David Fetter at Sep 22, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
    "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@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 a dependency we
    just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon.

    Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean
    "gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl. And CVS, which
    will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git. But I'm not going
    to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability bug report
    without having set up a buildfarm animal first.
    I agree that "get lost" is not a reasonable first reaction, but as
    with platforms like AIX, "It would help us enormously for you to put
    up a buildfarm animal with your development environment on it" isn't.

    Cheers,
    David.
    --
    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
    Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
    Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
    iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

    Remember to vote!
    Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
  • Robert Haas at Sep 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, David Fetter wrote:
    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
    "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@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 a dependency we
    just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon.

    Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean
    "gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl.  And CVS, which
    will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git.  But I'm not going
    to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability bug report
    without having set up a buildfarm animal first.
    I agree that "get lost" is not a reasonable first reaction, but as
    with platforms like AIX, "It would help us enormously for you to put
    up a buildfarm animal with your development environment on it" isn't.
    I feel like we do that already, as the occasion demands... so this
    isn't really a change in policy from that point of view.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise Postgres Company
  • David E. Wheeler at Sep 22, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    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
  • Robert Haas at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetter 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: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise Postgres Company
  • Andrew Dunstan at Sep 22, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    On 09/22/2010 04:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
    On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetterwrote:
    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.
    Couldn't have said it better.

    cheers

    andrew

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedSep 22, '10 at 8:18p
activeSep 22, '10 at 11:07p
posts15
users8
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase