Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah, I suppose I have to get in the habit of looking at CI before
> committing anything. It's sort of annoying to me, though. Here's a
> list of the follow-up fixes I've so far committed:
> 1. headerscheck
> 2. typos
> 3. pg_buffercache's meson.build
> 4. compiler warning
> 5. alignment problem
> 6. F_INTEQ/F_OIDEQ problem
> CI caught (1), (3), and (4). The buildfarm caught (1), (5), and (6).
> 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.
That seems like an unfounded complaint. You would have had to fix
(3) and (4) in any case, on some time schedule or other. I agree
that it'd be good if CI did some 32-bit testing so it could have
caught (5) and (6), but that's being worked on.
> 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.
Not so. People are already using meson in preference to the makefiles
for some things, I believe. And we're expecting that meson will
supplant the MSVC scripts pretty soon and the makefiles eventually.
> And like the existing buildfarm, it's severely under-documented.
That complaint I agree with. A wiki page is a pretty poor substitute
for in-tree docs.
regards, tom lane
