Dave,
* Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:
> Right - but the buildfarm isn't a feature being offered to end users.
And this network isn't a feature of the core code either, nor, do I
believe, is it being designed in a way that would require an overhaul
down the road to support Windows. To be honest, I really don't feel
this compares to features in the core code to begin with- I feel like
generally we don't like things which only work on a subset of platforms
because it's a small incremental change, and typically just requires
good programming practice, to make it work for all supported platforms.
That isn't true for this.
> I'm not saying it should be supported from day 1, but I think the
> initial plan will make it very difficult to add Windows support later
> without a great deal of rewriting/redesign. It's lack of forward
> planning I was objecting to.
I disagree with this, but in the end I don't think that it really
matters. If all we have resources for to work on this is a Perl expect,
then by golly let that be a dependency for the initial work. If there
are other resources who are willing to write the initial version in C,
or what have you, let them step up and offer. This isn't a zero-sum
game here and I'm strongly against telling someone "please don't work on
this" when it's something which will be of benefit to many users.
Thanks,
Stephen
