Re: branches_of_interest.txt

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: branches_of_interest.txt
Date: 2018-07-02 15:16:15
Message-ID: 20180702151615.2bxntauuvc63pfgb@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-07-01 11:41:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > This file on the buildfarm server is used to tell clients which branches
> > we'd like built. When a new stable branch is created it's added manually
> > to this file, and when one gets to EOL it's removed from the file. This
> > is a rather cumbersome process, and it occurred to me that it could be
> > streamlined by our keeping it in the core repo instead.
>
> I can see the value of people other than you being able to change it,
> but keeping it in the core repo seems like a kluge not a proper solution.
> In particular, once it'd been around for awhile so that the master copy
> had diverged from the back branches' copies, that would be pretty
> confusing IMO.

FWIW, I've a manually maintained version of this in the scripts I use to
commit / backpatch things. I'd appreciate not having to manually
maintain it, and be afraid to forget updating it ;)

FWIW, I don't really see the problem of maintaining it in-tree, it has
the advantage of guaranteeing the set of known-to-be-maintained branches
is guaranteed to be current.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-07-02 15:19:02 Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2018-07-02 15:15:56 Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?