Re: Buildfarm

"Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> Since tom seems to be fixing the back branches, I added 7.3 and 7.2 to
> firefly's set of branches it tries. Unfortunately
> neither one went green :(.

There's a limit to how much time I'm prepared to put into that endeavor
;-) and one Saturday afternoon is about it.

Somewhere along here there needs to be a discussion about what our goals
are. IMHO the back branches are supposed to be *stable* branches; that
means we only touch them to fix moderately-critical bugs. Fixing
cosmetic regression failures has never been classed as a critical bug,
and I don't think that the existence of the buildfarm should cause us to
start treating them as critical. So, while I was willing to back-port
one or two minor changes that looked pretty safe, I think we have to be
very conservative about doing that, especially for branches as far back
as 7.2 and 7.3.

regards, tom lane