On 11/03/2014 04:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/29/14 8:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm sympathetic to that line of reasoning, but I really think that if
>> you want to keep this infrastructure, it needs to be made portable.
> Let me clarify that this was my intention. I have looked at many test
> frameworks, many of which are much nicer than what we have, but the
> portability and dependency implications for this project would have been
> between shocking and outrageous. I settled for what I felt was the
> absolute minimum: Perl + IPC::Run. It was only later on that I learned
> that 1) subtests don't work in Perl 5.10, and 2) subtests are broken in
> Perl 5.12. So we removed the use of subtests and now we are back at the
> baseline I started with.
>
> The irony in this whole story is that if we had thrown this onto the
> build farm right away, we might have found and fixed these problems
> within a week instead of five months later.
>
>
An email note to me would probably have done the trick. I've missed one
or two things lately, since my mind has been to some extent elsewhere,
and don't mind a little memory jog.
cheers
andrew
