public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Anthony Roberts <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Holmes <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Lawrence Barwick <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Lina Iyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:44:07 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<ZOh/[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAC1bJ48DeG+nZQ3iYvOwjtwz+yOU4o8yTO25csH6eiL2U-n8nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

Michael Paquier <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Anthony Roberts wrote:
>> Just a follow-up: having spoken to the relevant people, sadly, right now,
>> we do not have the capacity to be pulling machines out of our day-to-day CI
>> tasks to dedicate to specific projects.

> Okay, thanks for letting us know.

Too bad.

> Honestly, I am not sure how to proceed here.  Having something in the
> buildfarm is necessary IMO, because this is the central place that
> community members look at when it comes to monitoring the stability of
> a patch committed.
> Any opinions from the others?

I agree.  I'm really uncomfortable with claiming support for
Windows-on-ARM if we don't have a buildfarm member testing it.
For other platforms that have a track record of multiple
hardware support, it might not be a stretch ... but Windows was
so resolutely Intel-only for so long that "it works on ARM" is
a proposition that I won't trust without hard evidence.  There
are too many bits of that system that might not have gotten the
word yet, or at least not gotten sufficient testing.

My vote for this is we don't commit without a buildfarm member.

(As a comparison point, I'd still be unsure about our support
for macOS-on-ARM if we didn't have buildfarm support for that.
That exists, and is being paid for out of my own pocket.
I do not have much sympathy for a corporation that claims
it can't afford to support one measly buildfarm animal.)

			regards, tom lane

view thread (60+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox