Re: Buildfarm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Buildfarm
Date: 2005-07-17 15:13:35
Message-ID: 27883.1121613215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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

In response to

  • Buildfarm at 2005-07-17 08:13:18 from Larry Rosenman

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-17 15:41:35 Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-07-17 15:02:40 Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines