Bruce Momjian wrote:
My post below was merely to agree with Tom that in principle, patches
should be be reviewed before application and not after. I still think
that's right - I have been concerned lately that the buildfarm has been
broken a bit too much.
Well, just because they are reviewed doesn't mean they aren't going to
break the build farm. In fact, the build farm is there to be broken ---
if all patches worked fine on all machines, we wouldn't need the build
farm. Let's not get into a case where keeping the build farm green is
our primary goal, "Oh, let's not apply that patch or it might break the
build farm". Hey, I have an idea, let's stop CVS update on the build
farm, and it will stay green forever. :-) LOL (Of course, we don't
want the build farm to stay broken or it masks newly introduced errors.)
I certainly expect buildfarm to break. But it is not intended as a
substitute for review either. We shouldn't be in the business of saying
"let's apply it and see if buildfarm breaks". We should be saying "I
have looked at this and my best guess is that it won't break." That
won't avoid all breakage, certainly. But it will keep it down.
If you withdraw your object to the GUC patch, then with a single person
objecting, the patch either goes in or that person takes responsibility
for getting it into 8.2, or the blame for leaving it for 8.3.
As I pointed out - I did not object to the patch being applied, I just
stated an agreement with a general principle, so there is nothing to
withdraw.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
