On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:45:10AM +0100, Chris Mair wrote:
I just wanted to mention that the latest release of OpenBSD i386
(4.0) is still broken too. So the ecpg-check failure would apply to
(at least) to 3.8, 4.0, and likely 3.9.
ok, but then we have some hosts in the buildfarm that run the
Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:45:10AM +0100, Chris Mair wrote:
I just wanted to mention that the latest release of OpenBSD i386
(4.0) is still broken too. So the ecpg-check failure would apply to
(at least) to 3.8, 4.0, and likely 3.9.
ok, but then we have some hosts in
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:09:34 +0100 Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:29:36AM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
ok, but then we have some hosts in the buildfarm that run the updated
versions like zebra and spoonbill. In this case we can't decide on the
OS
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:20:15AM +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
Attached is a patch to get guppy green again (hopefully).
Applied.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached patch enables the special expected files only for
i386-unknown-openbsd3.8.
This seems the wrong approach; we do not have anywhere near that good a
handle on which platforms have this behavior. I'd vote for treating it
like a locale difference,
Attached is a patch to get guppy green again (hopefully).
The two new files go into src/interfaces/ecpg/test/expected
Hi,
I just wanted to mention that the latest release of OpenBSD i386
(4.0) is still broken too. So the ecpg-check failure would apply to
(at least) to 3.8, 4.0, and likely
Tom Lane wrote:
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached patch enables the special expected files only for
i386-unknown-openbsd3.8.
This seems the wrong approach; we do not have anywhere near that good a
handle on which platforms have this behavior. I'd vote for treating it
like
Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Can't comment on that one, since I just noticed it existed. How similar
was this one to the standard regression tests? Those were moved into a
C executable so they'd run on a Windows system without a shell,
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:41:24AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
While I'm whining ... we really need some support in the ecpg regression
tests for platform-specific diffs, so that the consistent ECPG-check
failures in buildfarm can go away.
Hmm, I thought there was. Joachim, could you
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
There are, see for example
ecpg/test/expected/compat_informix-dec_test-MinGW32.stdout
AFAIK there were no other platforms except for MinGW that need special
treatment.
Talking about MinGW, do all MinGW systems return:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:49:59AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
There are, see for example
ecpg/test/expected/compat_informix-dec_test-MinGW32.stdout
AFAIK there were no other platforms except for MinGW that need special
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:37:03PM +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
Attached is a patch that adds a --regression option to ecpg. I replaced the
manual checking for long options (--version and --help) by a call to
...
Applied. I also changed the regression handling in other places. Guys,
please
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On guppy the ecpg checks trigger the OpenBSD bug that Michael and Stefan
identfied here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-09/msg00593.php
Not sure what to do about it, we could diff it away to get it green but it
would not solve the
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Can't comment on that one, since I just noticed it existed. How similar
was this one to the standard regression tests? Those were moved into a
C executable so they'd run on a Windows system without a shell, could
the same be done
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joachim Wieland wrote:
Attached is a patch that adds a --regression option to ecpg.
I have added a checklist item to update the ecpg regression output for
major release bumps. I think that is the easiest solution at this
point.
While I can't say
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:31:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
While I can't say whether Joachim's patch is the cleanest way, surely
we will not condemn ourselves to fixing this manually in every future
release cycle.
I couldn't agree more. The reason why I haven't committed Joachim's
patch yet is
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:50:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think we need to hear from Michael wither that version number in the C
file is needed.
It certainly is not for regression testing. However, I think it should
be there for production use so people know how they created those .c
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Stamp major release 8.3.0, and increment library version numbers.
this commit broke the buildfarm(ECPG-checks):
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Stefan
---(end of broadcast)---
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Stamp major release 8.3.0, and increment library version numbers.
this commit broke the buildfarm(ECPG-checks):
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Thanks, fixed.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stamp major release 8.3.0, and increment library version numbers.
this commit broke the buildfarm(ECPG-checks):
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Thanks, fixed.
The idea of having to
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stamp major release 8.3.0, and increment library version numbers.
this commit broke the buildfarm(ECPG-checks):
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Thanks,
21 matches
Mail list logo
