Обсуждение: getting rid of maintainer-check
The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it doesn't provide much functionality. I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the regular build. Specifically: - Running duplicate_oids during the regular build was already discussed elsewhere recently. There are some details to be resolved there, but it's doable. - Checking for tabs in SGML files can be run during the regular documentation build without problems. - The NLS checks can also be run during the regular NLS-enabled build. That's it. Any concerns?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most > people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it > doesn't provide much functionality. > > I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the > regular build. > > Specifically: > > - Running duplicate_oids during the regular build was already discussed > elsewhere recently. There are some details to be resolved there, but > it's doable. > > - Checking for tabs in SGML files can be run during the regular > documentation build without problems. > > - The NLS checks can also be run during the regular NLS-enabled build. > > That's it. Any concerns? I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I think that sounds like a significant improvement. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2013-09-03 22:41:17 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most > people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it > doesn't provide much functionality. > > I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the > regular build. > > Specifically: > > - Running duplicate_oids during the regular build was already discussed > elsewhere recently. There are some details to be resolved there, but > it's doable. Maybe we should also badger cpluspluscheck into a state where it can be run as part of a normal build if a c++ compiler was detected? I think it misses vpath support and it might be dependant on some bashims. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 9/4/13 11:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Maybe we should also badger cpluspluscheck into a state where it can be > run as part of a normal build if a c++ compiler was detected? > > I think it misses vpath support and it might be dependant on some > bashims. That might also be doable. If we could at the same time stick a usable C++ compiler configuration into PGXS, that would also help the growing number of extensions that need that and are currently using variously bad workarounds.
On 03-09-2013 23:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most > people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it > doesn't provide much functionality. > It has its use (before each release) but I agree that it isn't used during minor version updates (because you need to update only one or two po files). > I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the > regular build. > By 'regular build' you mean --enable-nls? If so, +1. > - Running duplicate_oids during the regular build was already discussed > elsewhere recently. There are some details to be resolved there, but > it's doable. > This has been bashing sufficient developers along the years. +1. > - Checking for tabs in SGML files can be run during the regular > documentation build without problems. > This one too. +1. -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte24x7 e Treinamento
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most > people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it > doesn't provide much functionality. > > I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the > regular build. Here is a patch for that. I also integrated Andrew's Perl version of duplicate_oids. The MSVC build needs to be updated separately, if they want to have that same functionality.
Вложения
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most >> people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it >> doesn't provide much functionality. >> >> I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality into the >> regular build. > > Here is a patch for that. I also integrated Andrew's Perl version of > duplicate_oids. > > The MSVC build needs to be updated separately, if they want to have that > same functionality. These patches look OK to me, and everyone who has commented has been in favor of this proposal. I'll mark this Ready for Committer. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company