* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > 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 > that?
I wasn't sure how far back it went, but if it's only to 9.1, then yes, farther than that. Specifically, to as far back as we wish to provide support for pg_dump, assuming it's reasonable to do so. > Or perhaps you are saying that coverage.pg.org should report results for > each branch separately? We could do that ... This would certainly be nice to have, but the first is more important. coverage.pg.org is nice to tell people "hey, here's where you can look to find what we aren't covering", but when you're actually hacking on code, you really want a much faster turn-around and you'd like that pre-commit too. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
