On 2022-Sep-28, Robert Haas wrote: > The number of buildfarm failures that I would have avoided by checking > CI is less than the number of extra things I had to fix to keep CI > happy, and the serious problems were caught by the buildfarm, not by > CI. [...] So I guess the way you're supposed to know that you need to > update meson.build that is by looking at CI, but CI is also the only > reason it's necessary to carry about meson.build in the first place. I > feel like CI has not really made it in any easier to not break the > buildfarm -- it's just provided a second buildfarm that you can break > independently of the first one.
I have an additional, unrelated complaint about CI, which is that we don't have anything for past branches. I have a partial hack(*), but I wish we had something we could readily use. (*) I just backpatched the commit that added the .cirrus.yml file, plus some later fixes to it, and I keep that as a separate branch which I merge with whatever other changes I want to test. I then push that to github, and ignore the windows results when looking at cirrus-ci.com. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "I am amazed at [the pgsql-sql] mailing list for the wonderful support, and lack of hesitasion in answering a lost soul's question, I just wished the rest of the mailing list could be like this." (Fotis) (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-06/msg00265.php)
