From: | markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Date: | 2007-01-15 20:52:49 |
Message-ID: | 70c01d1d0701151252u5977f311odd01a256f82b95f8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/12/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
> > What do you think about setting up the buildfarm clients
> > with the users they are willing to test patches for, as opposed to
> > having the patch system track who is are trusted users? My thoughts
> > are the former is easier to implement and that it allows anyone to use
> > the buildfarm to test a patch for anyone, well each buildfarm client
> > user permitting.
>
> We can do this, but the utility will be somewhat limited. The submitters
> will still have to be known and authenticated on the patch server. I
> think you're also overlooking one of the virtues of the buildfarm,
> namely that it does its thing unattended. If there is a preconfigured
> set of submitters/vetters then we can rely on them all to do their
> stuff. If it's more ad hoc, then when Joe Bloggs submits a spiffy new
> patch every buildfarm owner that wanted to test it would need to go and
> add him to their configured list of patch submitters. This doesn't seem
> too workable.
Ok so it really wasn't much work to put together a SOAP call that'll
return patches from everyone, a trusted group, or a specified
individual. I put together a short perl example that illustrates some
of this:
http://folio.dyndns.org/example.pl.txt
How does that look?
Regards,
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-15 21:15:04 | Re: Recent ecpg patch... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-15 20:46:31 | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |