Re: WIP: About CMake v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christian Convey
Subject Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date
Msg-id CAPfS4Zx-NtkmN3_eE0UJW9r_4qFjx9GgEzB5=4sKnimhaM5tAg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
Responses Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Tom,

>> I ask because I'm curious if/how someone in Yury's situation could
>> predict which minimum version of CMake must be supported in order for
>> his patch to be accepted.  (And if he accepts my offer to pitch in,
>> I'll actually need that particular detail.)
>
> well I personally think the level to meet would be that all the systems
> on the buildfarm that can build -HEAD at the time the patch is proposed
> for a commit should be able to build using the new system with whatever
> cmake version is available in those by default (if it is at all).

I see.  In other projects I've worked on, the configuration of a build
farm has been driven by some list of platforms that were considered
important to support.

Is that the case here as well?  I.e., is the build-farm population
just a convenient proxy for some other source of information regarding
what platforms are important?

Apologies if my questions are so basic that I can find the answers
elsewhere.  I'll happily follow any RTFM links.

Thanks again,
Christian



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2