Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> 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
