Thread: Another Modest Proposal: Platforms
Folks, While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I think it's time we did a little pruning. We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. What say? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 9/22/10 1:17 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a
> platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I
> think it's time we did a little pruning.
It is unclear to me what problem you're trying to solve.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:17:54PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a > platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I > think it's time we did a little pruning. > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the > first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > What say? > > Cheers, > David. Given the amount of trouble I had to get a git for a Solaris 8 system, I am not too keen on this definition for platform. PostgreSQL runs very well on the same system, along with SVN and CVS. Cheers, Ken
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:17 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a > platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I > think it's time we did a little pruning. > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the > first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > What say? > I say that Bruce got Git to run on BSD/OS 4 or something like that. I suggest that it won't matter what we say :P JD > Cheers, > David. > -- > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ > Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter > Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com > iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics > > Remember to vote! > Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the
> first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements.
Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > What say? "No." :-) I'd be fine with dropping support for ancient platforms if it lets us do something cool that we can't otherwise do, but there's no value in doing it just because we can. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On 09/22/2010 04:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM, David Fetter<david@fetter.org> wrote: >> What say? > "No." :-) > > I'd be fine with dropping support for ancient platforms if it lets us > do something cool that we can't otherwise do, but there's no value in > doing it just because we can. > Couldn't have said it better. cheers andrew
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being > > the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog. "Runs git" is actually not a bad proxy for "has modern developer tools." This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional requirements. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:58 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being > > > the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > > > Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog. > > "Runs git" is actually not a bad proxy for "has modern developer > tools." > > This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional > requirements. David, Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I mean I am with you on the idea of reducing our supported platforms. I see no reason to support <Solaris 9 <NetBSD in any form <FreeBSD <6 <Any Linux not supported by its own community (e.g; FC9) <Irix <> SCO Note: I am not actually advocating this as much as stating my own personal opinion. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:02:18PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:58 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being > > > > the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > > > > > Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog. > > > > "Runs git" is actually not a bad proxy for "has modern developer > > tools." > > > > This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional > > requirements. > > David, > > Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I > mean I am with you on the idea of reducing our supported platforms. I > see no reason to support > > <Solaris 9 > <NetBSD in any form > <FreeBSD <6 > <Any Linux not supported by its own community (e.g; FC9) > <Irix > <> SCO > > Note: I am not actually advocating this as much as stating my own > personal opinion. > > Joshua D. Drake It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring functionalities for *in*clusion. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:08 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring > functionalities for *in*clusion. I repeat: > Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Sep 22, 2010, at 2:08 PM, David Fetter wrote: > It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring > functionalities for *in*clusion. Passes all tests. David
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8.
... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for
that. If you don't want plperl, you can build from a tarball with
no perl at all.
Given the project history, I can't see us turning a dependency
we just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon.
Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean
"gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl. And CVS,
which will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git. But I'm
not going to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability
bug report without having set up a buildfarm animal first.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > > I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8. > > ... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for > that. If you don't want plperl, you can build from a tarball with > no perl at all. > > Given the project history, I can't see us turning a dependency we > just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon. > > Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean > "gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl. And CVS, which > will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git. But I'm not going > to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability bug report > without having set up a buildfarm animal first. I agree that "get lost" is not a reasonable first reaction, but as with platforms like AIX, "It would help us enormously for you to put up a buildfarm animal with your development environment on it" isn't. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> > I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8. >> >> ... and we still make a point of not having a hard requirement for >> that. If you don't want plperl, you can build from a tarball with >> no perl at all. >> >> Given the project history, I can't see us turning a dependency we >> just added this week into a hard requirement anytime soon. >> >> Now having said that, if you define "supported platform" to mean >> "gets tested on the buildfarm", we do require Perl. And CVS, which >> will soon get replaced by a requirement for Git. But I'm not going >> to tell someone to get lost if they file a portability bug report >> without having set up a buildfarm animal first. > > I agree that "get lost" is not a reasonable first reaction, but as > with platforms like AIX, "It would help us enormously for you to put > up a buildfarm animal with your development environment on it" isn't. I feel like we do that already, as the occasion demands... so this isn't really a change in policy from that point of view. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:17 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > While it's interesting to note, in an historical sense, that a > platform most recently updated when 1999 was still in the future, I > think it's time we did a little pruning. > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being the > first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > What say? > I say that Bruce got Git to run on BSD/OS 4 or something like that. I suggest that it won't matter what we say :P JD > Cheers, > David. > -- > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ > Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter > Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com > iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics > > Remember to vote! > Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:58 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > > We can start by supporting only platforms git runs on, this being > > > the first in what I'd picture as a set of base requirements. > > > > Sounds like allowing the tail to wag the dog. > > "Runs git" is actually not a bad proxy for "has modern developer > tools." > > This would be the first, as I mentioned, of a list of base functional > requirements. David, Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I mean I am with you on the idea of reducing our supported platforms. I see no reason to support <Solaris 9 <NetBSD in any form <FreeBSD <6 <Any Linux not supported by its own community (e.g; FC9) <Irix <> SCO Note: I am not actually advocating this as much as stating my own personal opinion. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:08 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > It's not about naming platforms for exclusion. It's about requiring > functionalities for *in*clusion. I repeat: > Perhaps you could suggest some more specific ideas of your proposal? I mean, it took us forever to require Perl 5.8. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt