On 2017-03-07 20:58:35 +0800, 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.

Personally that's not addressing my main concern, which is that the
latency of getting done with some patch/topic takes a long while. If I
have to wait for the buildfarm to check some preliminary patch, I still
have to afterwards work on pushing it to master.  And very likely my
local check would finish a lot faster than a bunch of buildfarm animals
- I have after all a plenty powerfull machine, lots of cores, fast ssd,
lots of memory, ...

So I really want faster end-to-end test, not less cpu time spent on my
own machine.

- Andres

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

Reply via email to