On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Noah Misch wrote:
>
> >Committed.
>
> Much apologizings for coming in late again, but I just realized it would be
> better if the user-controlled flags came after all predefined options the
> user might want to override. Right
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> Much apologizings for coming in late again, but I just realized it would be
> better if the user-controlled flags came after all predefined options the
> user might want to override. Right now that is only /verbosity in both build
> and cl
* Noah Misch wrote:
Committed.
Much apologizings for coming in late again, but I just realized it would
be better if the user-controlled flags came after all predefined options
the user might want to override. Right now that is only /verbosity in
both build and clean operations.
Patch att
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:43:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Every vcbuild and msbuild invocation ought to recognize this variable, so
> > please update the two places involving ecpg_regression.proj. Apart from
> > that,
> > the patch l
* Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
Every vcbuild and msbuild invocation ought to recognize this variable, so
please update the two places involving ecpg_regression.proj. Apart from that,
the patch looks good.
Good catch. I did not notice those durin
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:15:05AM +, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>> * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Christian Ullrich
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mic
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 08:26:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > I was tempted to back-patch this. The risk to back branch users seems
> > negligible, and it would be convenient for me as a person who builds all
> > branches. That reason is not good enough, so I plan not to bac
Noah Misch writes:
> I was tempted to back-patch this. The risk to back branch users seems
> negligible, and it would be convenient for me as a person who builds all
> branches. That reason is not good enough, so I plan not to back-patch. I
> feel like I might be missing a stronger reason to ba
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:15:05AM +, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Christian Ullrich
> > wrote:
>
> > > * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
>
> > >> vcbuild also supports /
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Christian Ullrich
>> wrote:
>>> OK then, hopefully last round attached.
>>
>> Thanks. Those are fine in my view. It is hard to tell if a committer
>> is going to have a look at
* Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
OK then, hopefully last round attached.
Thanks. Those are fine in my view. It is hard to tell if a committer
is going to have a look at that soon, so I think that it would be
wiser to add that to the next CF s
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> OK then, hopefully last round attached.
Thanks. Those are fine in my view. It is hard to tell if a committer
is going to have a look at that soon, so I think that it would be
wiser to add that to the next CF so as those patches don't fal
* From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Christian Ullrich
> wrote:
> > * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
> >> vcbuild also supports /m. Wouldn't it make sense to have a environment
> >> variable flag for it as well?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
>> Why is that? Your patch just has a look at argv[0] to see if that's a
>> debug or release build.
>
> Sorry, forgot to fix that. I originally used Getopt in build.pl, then
> re
* From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Christian Ullrich
> wrote:
>
> -build DEBUG
> +build -c DEBUG
>
> To build just a single project, for example psql, run the commands:
>
> build psql
> -build DEBUG psql
> +build -c DEBUG psq
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Christian Ullrich
wrote:
> The first patch passes the value of the MSBFLAGS environment variable to
> msbuild's command line.
>
> The output of parallel and sequential builds has identical file count and
> size after installing; all tests pass.
If a committer is
On my system, "build DEBUG" takes ~2.75 minutes. When I tell MSBuild to
build in parallel by passing it the /m flag, that goes down to 1.5 minutes.
The first patch passes the value of the MSBFLAGS environment variable to
msbuild's command line.
The output of parallel and sequential builds has
17 matches
Mail list logo
