From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: marking old branches as no longer maintained |
Date: | 2011-07-12 00:10:42 |
Message-ID: | 4E1B9102.30301@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/11/2011 07:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 06/28/2011 05:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On tis, 2011-06-28 at 17:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>>> Couldn't you just put a text file on the build farm server with
>>>>> recommended branches?
>>>> As I told Magnus, that gets ugly because of limitations in MinGW's SDK
>>>> perl. I suppose I could just not implement the feature for MinGW, but
>>>> I've tried damn hard not to make those sorts of compromises and I'm not
>>>> keen to start.
>>> The buildfarm code can upload the build result via HTTP; why can't it
>>> download a file via HTTP?
>>
>> It has to use a separate script to do that. I don't really want to add
>> another one just for this.
>>
>> (thinks a bit) I suppose I can make it do:
>>
>> my $url = "http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/branches_of_interest.txt";
>> my $branches_of_interest = `perl -MLWP::Simple -e "getprint(q{$url})"`;
>>
>> Maybe that's the best option. It's certainly going to be less code than
>> anything else :-)
> Could you pull the list of active branches from our web site HTML?
>
I can, but I'm not that keen on having to do web scraping. Currently my
test machine (crake) is using the above scheme and it's working fine.
It's not a huge burden to maintain, after all.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-07-12 00:33:04 | Re: txid_current() forces a real xid |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-07-11 23:59:01 | Re: marking old branches as no longer maintained |