On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>>> Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely > >>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it > >>> used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of > >>> complication for little or no actual gain -- net loss in fact. > >> > >> It doesn't just build the docs. It makes the dist snapshots too. > > > > Thus making the turnaround time on a docs build even slower ... ? > > > >> And the old script often broke badly, IIRC. > > > > The script broke on occasion, but the main problem was that it wasn't > > monitored. Which is something that could have been fixed. > > > >> The current setup doesn't install > >> anything if the build fails, which is a distinct improvement. > > > > You mean it doesn't build the docs if the code build fails? Would that > > really be an improvement? > > why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build > and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it > are a combined thing and there is no point in pushing docs for something > that fails even basic testing...
Most of the cases I care about are doc-only commits. Frankly, there is a 99.9% chance thta if it was committed, it compiles. We are only displaying the docs, so why not just test for the docs. It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
