Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it sounds about perfect for my use case too (which is
>>> approximately the same as Tom's), but the description makes it sound
>>> unsupported. It doesn't work on Windows which doesn't bother me
>>> personally but may be a showstopper more generally.
>>>
>
>
>> It's not a showstopper for me. Can't speak for Magnus, Andrew or
>> anyone else working on Windows though.
>>
>
> Seems like we'd want all committers to be using a similar work-flow
> for back-patching, else we're going to have random variations in what
> patch sets look like in the history.
>
> I think the appropriate question is why doesn't it work on Windows,
> and is that fixable? Without having looked, I'm guessing the issue
> is that it depends on hardlinks or symlinks --- and we know those are
> available, as long as you're using recent Windows with NTFS. Which
> does not sound like an unreasonable baseline requirement for someone
> committing from Windows.
>
>
>
It's a shell script, IIRC.
I think it could probably be made to work on WIndows if really necessary
(e.g. by translating into perl).
cheers
andrew
