From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Build farm |
Date: | 2003-11-21 18:47:48 |
Message-ID: | 23062.1069440468@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Maybe it wouldn't be of great value to PostgreSQL. And maybe it would. I
>> have an open mind about it. I don't think incompleteness is an argument
>> against it, though.
> If you want to do it, by all means go for it. I'm sure it would give
> everyone a fuzzy feeling to see the green lights everywhere. But
> realistically, don't expect any significant practical benefits, such
> cutting beta time by 10%.
I think the main value of a build farm is that we'd get nearly immediate
feedback about the majority of simple porting problems. Your previous
arguments that it wouldn't smoke everything out are certainly valid ---
but we wouldn't abandon the regression tests just because they don't
find everything. Immediate feedback is good because a patch can be
fixed while it's still fresh in the author's mind.
I'm for it ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-21 18:50:02 | Re: logical column position |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-21 18:37:12 | Re: initdb segfaults - latest cvs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-21 19:08:28 | Re: Release cycle length |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-11-21 18:32:38 | Re: Release cycle length |