On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I've always been a bit reluctant to accept buildfarm members that are
> constantly being updated, because it seemed to me that it created something
> with too many variables. However, we occasionally get requests from people
> who want to run on such platforms, and I'm also a bit reluctant to turn away
> willing volunteers. We have one such application now in hand.
> What do people think about this. Is it valuable to have? Do we have enough
> stability from the buildfarm members that are not auto-updated that we can
> accept a certain number of auto-updating members, where, if something
> breaks, and it doesn't break elsewhere, then we suspect that something that
> got upgraded broke the build?
> I'm also not sure how to designate these machines. The buildfarm server
> metadata isn't designed for auto-updating build platforms. But no doubt if
> necessary we can come up with something.

Off-hand, it seems like we could give it a try, and abandon the effort
if it proves too problematic.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to