Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun sep 10 11:55:58 -0300 2012: > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > 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. I see no reason for a code failure to cause the docs not to be refreshed, if they still build. Many buildfarm failures are platform dependencies that the original developer did not notice. That doesn't mean that the code "is utterly broken so much that docs suck and should not be published at all or we risk eternal embarrasment". Such failures tend to be short-lived anyway, and it's useful to be able to check that the docs are fine regardless of them. > 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. You keep threatening with that. You are free, of course, to do anything you want, and no one will break sweat about it. I already said I will work on getting this up and running, but I can't give you a deadline for when it'll be working. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
