On 10/25/21 11:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have >> buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems. >> In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to >> the branches_to_build list. > Well, we would add them to *some* list, but not to the one used by stock > BF members -- not only because of the diskspace issue but also because > of the time to build. I suggest that we should have a separate > list-of-branches file that would only be used by BF members especially > configured to do so; and hopefully we won't allow more than a handful > animals to do that but rather a well-chosen subset, and also maybe allow > only GCC rather than try to support other compilers. (There's no need > to ensure compilability on any Windows platform, for example.)
Well, we do build with gcc on Windows :-) But yes, maybe we should make this a more opt-in process. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
