Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-12-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: That was my fault -- the alvh.no-ip.org domain was deleted, and the email system in postgresql.org rejected the commit message because the sender was not in a deliverable domain.

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-12-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: That was my fault -- the alvh.no-ip.org domain was deleted, and the email system in postgresql.org rejected the commit message because the sender was

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-12-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: All of the MSVC critters are failing at make check. Yeah, I noticed that, thanks. As far as I can see the only way to fix it is to install dummy_seclabel to run the core seclabel test. That doesn't seem

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Sounds good to me. The other parts of the core tests that depend on contrib modules aren't exactly good models to follow. Pushed; tests pass for me, let's see what buildfarm says. Pushed? Don't see it ...

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-12-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Sounds good to me. The other parts of the core tests that depend on contrib modules aren't exactly good models to follow. Pushed; tests pass for me, let's see what buildfarm says. Pushed? Don't see it

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm not happy with test module move

2014-11-30 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: All of the MSVC critters are failing at make check. Yeah, I noticed that, thanks. As far as I can see the only way to fix it is to install dummy_seclabel to run the core seclabel test. That doesn't seem smart; I think it'd be