From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Date: | 2007-01-05 01:44:20 |
Message-ID: | 3674.24.211.165.134.1167961460.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
>> 1. Pull source directly from repositories (cvs, git, etc.) PLM
>> doesn't really track actually scm repositories. It requires
>> directories of source code to be traversed, which are set up by
>> creating mirrors.
>
> It seems to me that a better approach might be to mirror the CVS repo --
> or at least make that an option -- and pull the sources locally. Having to
> pull down >100MB of data for every build might be onerous to some build
> farm members.
>
I am not clear about what is being proposed. Currently buildfarm syncs
against (or pulls a fresh copy from, depending on configuration) either
the main anoncvs repo or a mirror (which you can get using cvsup or rsync,
among other mechanisms). I can imagine a mechanism in which we pull
certain patches from a patch server (maybe using an RSS feed, or a SOAP
call?) which could be applied before the run. I wouldn't want to couple
things much more closely than that.
The patches would need to be vetted first, or no sane buildfarm owner will
want to use them.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-01-05 02:44:56 | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-01-05 01:24:23 | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |