Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Then I guess the question is... is it more valuable to have a working
buildfarm environment for 7.2 and 7.3, or is the obnoxious failure
better to spur someone into looking at it? :) Should this maybe be made
a TODO and I'll adjust my config until someone tackles the TODO?
I don't think 7.2 and 7.3 deserve heroic efforts to get every possible
build in a green state. The main reason to run buildfarm at all on these
branches is to make sure that any maintenance changes don't break things.
Also, what do people think about having the buildfarm track different
compile/build options on each environment? ISTM there's value in being
able to change-up config options to make sure that different
combinations work. My thought is having the buildfarm configured so that
it knows what options on a machine should work (based on external
dependancies) and then the script can cycle through different configs.
Of course this means the server would have to do a better job of
tracking per-config-setting info...
I actually abandoned an earlier attempt to create a buildfarm because I
tried to cater for every possible combination. I do not want to get into
that again. Buildfarm is not going to find every problem, no matter how
hard we try. So I want to follow the KISS principle, if for no other
reason than that I would far rather be working on cool postgres features
than on the buildfarm :-) There is already a good list of features to be
worked on.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
