On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jon Franz wrote:
> > It could be helpful to create a mailing list just for this project,
> > since not all members of pg-hackers will/shall participate, and we
> > would probably flood this list quite a bit trying to figure out what
> > is the best way to implement a win32 port. Just like the
> > pg-replication list, this new list would be project specific.
> >
> > However, as an aside, I think the 'first best fit shall be commited'
> > approach is a _bad_ idea. Everyone (whos interested in the port)
> > agrees with the basic goals, and we will get a working system much
> > faster if we all work on a single solution: And not try to race each
> > other.
>
> I think we have to be involved to prevent chaos when those patches
> arrive.
>
> > If the main pg developers do not want to bless a specific method/project
> > for the port, then the people interested should hash it out, before
> > hundreds of man-hours are wasted developing something that ends up not
> > being used. Debuging-into existence is a bad idea, as the single-night
> > example hints at (wether intentionaly or not) - with a proper plan we
> > should be able to create unit tests that can prove whether the methods
> > choosen are functioning well before we ever get a fully working
> > postmaster.
>
> Actually, don't we have a cygwin mailing list? Seems that would be a
> great location, except for the name. Maybe Marc can close the list and
> migrate them all to a new 'win32' list.
Two different issues here ... a win32 port is different then the cygwin
issues ... also, I had suggested ages back creatin ga seperate list, but
was told that it would frustrate the effort ... so unless those that
disagreed with it in the first place have changed their mind, the
discussion of any porting effort to win32 should remain here ...
