Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> More important, I see no reason to tie applying patches to pulling
>> from CVS. In fact, I think it's a bad idea: you want to build just
>> what's in CVS first, to make sure that it's working, before you start
>> testing any patches against it.

> Actually, I think a patch would need to be designated against a particular
> branch and timestamp, and the buildfarm member would need to "update" to
> that on its temp copy before applying the patch.

I think I like Jim's idea better: you want to find out if some other
applied patch has broken the patch-under-test, so I cannot see a reason
for testing against anything except branch tip.

There certainly is value in being able to test against a non-HEAD branch
tip, but I don't see the point in testing against a back timestamp.

regards, tom lane