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
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? |