On Friday 28 August 2015 13:51:30 you wrote:
> It's broadly interesting, but since it bakes in a build dependency on
> CMake, there is some risk that the dependencies become an insurmountable
> problem.
>
> (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-))
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13605 you about this?
>
> It is probably worth a try, to see what improvements arise, albeit with the
> need to accept some risk of refusal of the change.
>
> The experiment is most likely necessary: we won't know the benefits without
> trying.
You right.
>
> If the results represent little improvement, there will be little or no
> appetite to jump through the dependency hoops needed to get the change
> accepted.
>
> On the other hand, if there are big gains, that encourages pushing thru the
> dependency issues.
>
> On Aug 28, 2015 10:45, "YUriy Zhuravlev" <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Hello Hackers
> >
> > How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build
> > system?
> >
> > Old thread:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200812291325.13354.peter_e@gmx.net
> >
> > The main argument against the "it's too hard". I'm right?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > YUriy Zhuravlev
> > Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> > The Russian Postgres Company
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
