On 02/07/14 06:02, Robert Haas wrote:
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.

How about prefixing the names of Auto Updating build farms with 'au_'?


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

Reply via email to