| 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 03:34:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4078.24.211.165.134.1167968081.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> With PLM, you could test patches against various code branches. I'd
> guessed Mark would want to provide this capability. Pulling branches from
> anonvcvs regularly might be burdensome bandwidth-wise. So, like you say, a
> local mirror would be beneficial for patch testing.
I think you're missing the point. Buildfarm members already typically have
or can get very cheaply a copy of each branch they build (HEAD and/or
REL*_*_STABLE). As long as the patch feed is kept to just patches which
they can apply there should be no great bandwidth issues.
>
>> The patches would need to be vetted first, or no sane buildfarm owner
>> will
>> want to use them.
>
> It would be nice if there could be a class of trusted users whose patches
> would not have to be vetted.
>
>
Beyond committers?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-05 03:38:18 | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-05 03:28:46 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |