Stephen Frost wrote:
> What would be really nice would be code coverage information for the
> back-branches also, as that would allow us to figure out what we're
> missing coverage for. I realize that we don't like adding new things to
> back-branches as those changes could impact packagers, but that might
> not impact them since that only runs when you run 'make coverage'.
Hmm? 9.1 already has "make coverage", so there's nothing to backpatch.
Do you mean to backpatch that infrastructure even further back than
Or perhaps you are saying that coverage.pg.org should report results for
each branch separately? We could do that ...
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: