Horton

Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Brar Piening <brar@gmx.de>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-01T00:06:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Enable compiling with the mingw-w64 32 bit compiler.

  2. Unify spelling of "canceled", "canceling", "cancellation"


On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Some minor nitpicks:
>>
>> Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and 
>> VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not 
>> just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? 
> We certainly don't *need* them.
> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different 
> target file formats into different source files. In my opinion this 
> makes it easier to find the code that is actually generating the files 
> that get used in a specific build environment.
> While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not 
> much more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and 
> probably never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for 
> generating the new file format which would significantly bloat up the 
> code in Project.pm that currently contains the common code for 
> generating the old file formats.
>
>


Does anyone else have an opinion on this. I want to wrap this up ASAP so 
we can get a VS2010 buildfarm member working.

cheers

andrew