On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan <
andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> On 03/07/2017 07:58 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 7 March 2017 at 20:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, +1 on improving matters here.
> > +1 also.
> >
> > I don't see what's wrong with relying on buildfarm though; testing is
> > exactly what its there for.
> >
> > If we had a two-stage process, where committers can issue "trial
> > commits" as a way of seeing if the build farm likes things. If they
> > do, we can push to the main repo.
> >
> I'm happy to work on this.  Not quite sure how it would work, but I'm
> open to any suggestions.

Assuming the intention is a service for *committers only*, I suggest
setting up a separate (closed) git repository that committers can push to
and a separate set of BF animals could work from. We could just have it do
all branches in it, no need to filter that way as long as we keep it a
separate repo.

There have also on and off been discussions about building arbitrary
patches as they are sent to the mailinglists. Doing that without any
committer (or other trusted party) as a filter is a completely different
challenge of course, given that it basically amounts to downloading and
running random code off the internet.

But doing just the first would make it a lot easier, and probably still be
of good value.

An in-between could be to hook something off the CF app, but one important
question is how important covering many platforms is. Since we already have
good functionality for doing that in the buildfarm, it makes sense to
utilize that if we can.

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to