Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> wrote:
> Really? You genuinely don't have time to paste, say:
>
> mkdir -p ~/src/pgdevel
> cd ~/src/pgdevel
> wget https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/snapshot/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2
> tar xjf postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2
> mkdir bld
> cd bld
> ../postgresql-9.5devel/configure $(pg_config --configure | sed -e 's/\(pg\|postgresql[-> \/]\)\(doc-\)\?9\.[0-9]*\(dev\)\?/\1\29.5dev/g')
> make world
> make check
> make world-install
>
> and yet you think you have enough time to provide more than a "looks like it's working" report to the developers?

Adding steps to an existing process to fetch and build from source is
significantly more complicated then flipping a version number. And I'm
not trying to run PG's built in tests on my machine. I want to run the
tests for my applications, and ideally, my applications themselves.

If doing so leads me to find that something doesn't work then of
course I would research and report the cause. At that point it's
something that I know will directly effect me if it's not fixed!

> Well yes, automated packaging of the nightly build, that doesn't involve the developers having to stop what they're doing to write official alpha release docs or any of the other stuff that goes along with doing a release, would be zero-impact on development (assuming the developers didn't have to build or maintain the auto-packager) and therefore any return (however small) would make it worthwhile.
> Fancy building (and maintaining) the auto-packaging system, and managing a mailing list for its users?

I don't have much experience in setting things like this up so I'm not
one to estimate the work load involved. If it existed though, I'd use
it.

Regards,
-- Sehrope Sarkuni
Founder & CEO | JackDB, Inc. | https://www.jackdb.com/