On 2017-01-27 22:20:41 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/27/17 6:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-01-27 09:09:36 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> My preferred scenario would be to replace the Windows build system by > >> this first, then refine it, then get rid of Autoconf. > >> > >> The ideal timeline would be to have a ready patch to commit early in a > >> development cycle, then get rid of the Windows build system by the end > >> of it. Naturally, this would need buy-in from Windows developers. > >> > >> I don't foresee replacing the Autoconf build system by this immediately. > > > > I'm very strongly against this path, it seems way too likely that we'll > > end up with yet another fragile thing that nobody from the *nix side > > will be able to test. > > That's a fair concern, but at least with CMake, someone from the *nix > side *can* test it, whereas right now it's completely separate.
Given that fact, I just don't buy why it's a good idea to not also replace autoconf initially. Either we're able to properly test it - i.e. it runs all tests - on *nix or we're not. There's not a a whole of effort between those if you also want to do the windows side of things properly. > What kind of strategy do you have in mind? Do all of it. I'm unconvinced that a windows only version buys us meaningful savings, and I think the dangers of adding more duplication (msvc stuff after all gets some information from the makefiles) and long-term coexistence are quite severe. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
