On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and > there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree > upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned > with feedback. Arguments against?
Agreed with your position. The TAP tests rely on IPC::Run as a pillar of its infrastructure. I think that if we need a base API to do such capabilities we ought to prioritize what we can do with it first instead of trying to reinvent the wheel as this patch proposes in such a complicated way. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
