From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it |
Date: | 2006-07-16 17:12:24 |
Message-ID: | 44BA7378.9070800@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Tom Lane
> Sent: Sun 7/16/2006 3:29 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [HACKERS] Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it
>
>
>> AFAICT, snake is the only Windows machine that
>> actually runs the buildfarm on a regular schedule, and even it is just
>> running once a day.
>>
>
> I can bump that up as high as you'd like within reason. 4? 6 times a day?
>
>
Let's go for 6, at least for HEAD. Under normal use buildfarm doesn't
actually do anything unless it detects a change in the source, and it
makes sure there isn't a collision by using a lockfile. That means it is
safe to schedule builds fairly frequently.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-16 17:46:31 | Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2006-07-16 17:05:01 | Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it |