From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |
Date: | 2010-11-08 20:48:49 |
Message-ID: | 4CD86231.4090500@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/08/2010 03:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On mån, 2010-11-08 at 15:01 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> First, the buildfarm doesn't build the docs. That's a deliberate
>>> decision, based on the fact that not every member has the required
>>> software installed. And second these targets only exist for 9.0 and/or
>>> later.
>> I'm aware of those issues. I'm just saying you could consolidate things
>> along those lines in the long term.
> Probably not: your proposal depends on having "make" available, which it
> won't be for Windows builds. I doubt Andrew wishes to implement
> make-equivalent logic in the buildfarm script.
No, and what is more, it runs counter to the philosophy of the
buildfarm, which is basically to do by automation what a human would do
by hand in building and testing Postgres.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-08 21:03:25 | Re: Removing pgsql_tmp files |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-08 20:38:16 | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |