Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut has suggested that we should run "make -k" instead of
> plain "make" for most or all of the buildfarm steps. This flag
> essentially instructs make to keep going rather than fail at the first
> error. We haven't done that for the last five or six years that the
> buildfarm has been running, and nobody up to now has complained (that I
> recall). I don't have any great objection, but before I make this change
> I thought it might be as well to canvas a wider range of opinion.

> So, does anyone else have thoughts about it?

I don't really care about make -k as such. What I *have* occasionally
wished for is that the buildfarm script would act more like make -k with
respect to the various test stages. That is, not abandon the whole test
after one stage fails, but allow stages that don't logically depend on
the failed one to proceed. But I'm not sure how hard that would be ---
quite aside from coding complexity, it would mean that you could have
more than one failing stage, and I don't know how you'd show that in the
dashboard.

Anyway, no objection to Peter's request; but there's another TODO item
for your buildfarm list, if you want to accept it.

regards, tom lane