On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:34:07AM +0100, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Christian Ullrich wrote:
> >* Noah Misch wrote:
> >>On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>Oh, OK. In that case, we need to get some representatives of these
> >>>more modern builds into the buildfarm wh
* Christian Ullrich wrote:
* Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, OK. In that case, we need to get some representatives of these
more modern builds into the buildfarm while we're at it.
Yep. Among machines already in the buildfarm, the one runnin
On 01/11/2018 12:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:36:13PM +, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>>> * Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, OK. In that case, we need
* From: Noah Misch [mailto:n...@leadboat.com]
> > > Ready to go, waiting for animal assignment. For now, I can
> confirm that it works, that is, the buildfarm --test run is
> successful.
> Did the animal assignment come through? I don't see such an animal
> reporting.
No, not yet. Sorry, I lost
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:36:13PM +, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> > * Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Oh, OK. In that case, we need to get some representatives of these
> > >>
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:36:13PM +, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oh, OK. In that case, we need to get some representatives of these
> >> more modern builds into the buildfarm while we're at it.
> >
> > Yep.
* Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, OK. In that case, we need to get some representatives of these
>> more modern builds into the buildfarm while we're at it.
>
> Yep. Among machines already in the buildfarm, the one running member
> woodlouse
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't really have an opinion about the relative merits of these changes,
> >> but why do anything? The existing solution has the buildfarm happy, and
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:14:41PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> 1. If $Config{gccversion} is nonempty, add _USE_32BIT_TIME_T. This will do
>the wrong thing if MinGW changes its default to match modern MSVC. It will
>do the wrong thing for a Perl built with "gcc -D__MINGW_USE_VC2005_COMPAT".
On 11/29/2017 11:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't really have an opinion about the relative merits of these changes,
>>> but why do anything? The existing solution has the buildfarm happy, and
>>> we've not hear
Noah Misch writes:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't really have an opinion about the relative merits of these changes,
>> but why do anything? The existing solution has the buildfarm happy, and
>> we've not heard any field complaints that I saw. I'm not sure
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4.
>>> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can
>>> readily do. Real
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4.
> >> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can
> >> readi
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4.
>> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can
>> readily do. Realistically, nobody out in the wider world is likely
>> to
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Short of declaring this version of Perl unsupported, the only answer
> > I can think of is to put a kluge into the MSVC build scripts along
> > the lines of "if it's 32-bit Windows, and the Perl version is before X,
> > assume
15 matches
Mail list logo
