Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
>> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
>> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open
> Then again, it would be useful to actually test on Debian
> testing/unstable (or pre-release branches of other OS), because that
> would (a) expose problems with new toolchains and such earlier than in
> released versions, and (b) provide advance testing for when testing
> becomes the release. Consider, the number of users that will run 8.2
> on Debian stable is probably going to be less than the number of users
> who will run 8.2 on what today is testing.
> I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory.
> I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL
> doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway.
well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the
buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but
without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced
to those moving/changing branches and causing discussions on "why is it
suddenly failung on that box but not on the other".
There might be quite a difference between a 2 month old testing and a
recent one for example.
However - we already have some precedence on the buildfarm for that
(like the various -current BSD-members)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster