Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Brar Piening <brar@gmx.de>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-08-10T13:03:40Z
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 →
-
Enable compiling with the mingw-w64 32 bit compiler.
- 1a0c76c32fe4 9.2.0 cited
-
Unify spelling of "canceled", "canceling", "cancellation"
- 21f1e15aafb1 9.2.0 cited
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:25, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches >> From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> >> To: Brar Piening <brar@gmx.de> >> Date: 06.07.2011 22:58 >> >>>> I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files get >>>> commited. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I'm just doing some final testing and preparing to commit the new pgflex >>> and pgbison. >> >> >> The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my versions >> of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by Andrews' versions >> that are already commited. >> >> As before "perltidy_before.patch" has to be applied first and >> "VS2010v9.patch" second. >> >> > > I just started looking at this a bit. One small question: why are we using > "use base qw(foo);" instead of "use parent qw(foo);" which I understand is > preferred these days? I am no perl expert, but I see we are using this already today - in code written by you in one case ;) I'd assume it was just following the same standard... If the other way is the way to do it today, I see no reason not to change it to use that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/