From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jim C(dot)Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Date: | 2007-01-10 23:04:41 |
Message-ID: | C48D3265-85B6-45E7-998A-9670837B76CE@seespotcode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 9, 2007, at 20:41 , Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:16PM -0600, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2007, at 19:25 , Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I see point in both... I'd think you'd want to know if a
>>> patch
>>> worked against the CVS checkout it was written against.
>>
>> Regardless, it's unlikely that the patch was tested against all of
>> the platforms available on the build farm. If it fails on some of the
>> build|patch farm animals, or if it fails due to bitrot, the point is
>> it fails: whatever version the patch was generated against is pretty
>> much moot: the patch needs to be fixed.
>
> Wouldn't there be some value to knowing whether the patch failed
> due to
> bitrot vs it just didn't work on some platforms out of the gate?
I'm having a hard time figuring out what that value would be. How
would that knowledge affect what's needed to fix the patch?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-10 23:10:39 | Re: installcheck vs regression DLLs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-10 23:00:13 | Re: installcheck vs regression DLLs |