Re: ecpg and bison again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ecpg and bison again
Date
Msg-id 3591.1024491991@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ecpg and bison again  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: ecpg and bison again  (Lee Kindness <lkindness@csl.co.uk>)
Re: ecpg and bison again  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
Re: ecpg and bison again  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:41:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
> How about we add the preproc.c file generated by bison 1.49 to cvs?
> Could that create problems elsewhere? 
>> 
>> Yes.  It's a bad idea to put derived files in CVS.  For one thing,
>> CVS will not guarantee that their timestamps are right compared to
>> the master file.

> Actually I thought about changing the makefile as well, so preproc.c
> does not look like a derived file anymore.

That cure would be FAR worse than the disease.  Leave it be.

The time for panic will be in August, if we are ready to make a beta
release and there's still no bison release.  In the meantime I really
don't see why you can't keep updating your copy of preproc.y and
just not commit it...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL99 feature list
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: ECPG won't compile anymore