"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes:
> Attached is a patch.
> I have changed the discussion to focus on the buildfarm process, and
> it should be recognized that this does change the "shape" of how this
> section recognizes platforms as being "supported."
This is exactly *not* what I wanted to do, as it removes all traces
of knowledge about which platforms are likely to work (or not work)
despite not being represented in the current buildfarm. It also
seems a bit silly to copy-and-paste today's buildfarm roster into
static documentation.
I think citing the buildfarm as the latest authority, and encouraging
people to join it, is a fine thing. But a mass delete of older info
doesn't seem appropriate IMHO.
> This has the conspicuous effect that a number of platforms fall off
> the list, notably:
> - Red Hat
> - Slackware
> - HP/UX
> - Irix
Can't speak to Slackware or Irix, but IMHO Fedora and HP/UX deserve to
remain listed because I do development/testing work on them every day.
I don't feel a need to run an explicit buildfarm member on my machines
too ;-). There are probably a few other platforms that are similarly
used by other key developers --- I don't see any indication that Bruce
is running a buildfarm member on whichever-BSD-he-uses, for instance.
regards, tom lane
