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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers