On 2017-01-27 22:20:41 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/27/17 6:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-01-27 09:09:36 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> My preferred scenario would be to replace the Windows build system by
> >> this first, then refine it, then get rid of Autoconf.
> >>
> >> The ideal timeline would be to have a ready patch to commit early in a
> >> development cycle, then get rid of the Windows build system by the end
> >> of it. Naturally, this would need buy-in from Windows developers.
> >>
> >> I don't foresee replacing the Autoconf build system by this immediately.
> >
> > I'm very strongly against this path, it seems way too likely that we'll
> > end up with yet another fragile thing that nobody from the *nix side
> > will be able to test.
>
> That's a fair concern, but at least with CMake, someone from the *nix
> side *can* test it, whereas right now it's completely separate.
Given that fact, I just don't buy why it's a good idea to not also
replace autoconf initially. Either we're able to properly test it -
i.e. it runs all tests - on *nix or we're not. There's not a a whole of
effort between those if you also want to do the windows side of things
properly.
> What kind of strategy do you have in mind?
Do all of it. I'm unconvinced that a windows only version buys us
meaningful savings, and I think the dangers of adding more duplication
(msvc stuff after all gets some information from the makefiles) and
long-term coexistence are quite severe.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
