| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |
| Date: | 2010-11-09 05:45:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1289281512.8190.4.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2010-11-08 at 15:48 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> No, and what is more, it runs counter to the philosophy of the
> buildfarm, which is basically to do by automation what a human would
> do by hand in building and testing Postgres.
Yes, but a human would rarely actually do by hand all the 12 steps you
list, which is kind of part of the problem I'm trying to address. It's
much simpler to run the 7 steps I list, which are easy-to-remember
top-level targets, than to remember to run 5 or 6 obscure test suites by
hand.
Anyway, doesn't matter, the buildfarm works fine, but your argument
above is backwards.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-09 06:10:17 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - iteration over fields of rec or row variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-09 04:03:06 | Re: Avoid memory leaks during ANALYZE's compute_index_stats() ? |