Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> cvs update isn't too bad either. I just did a substantial update on
> a tree that had not been touched for nearly 6 months, and ethereal
> tells me that total traffic was 7343004 bytes in 7188 packets.
> Individual buildfarm updates are going to be much lower than that,
> by a couple of orders of magnitude, I suspect.

More important, I see no reason to tie applying patches to pulling
from CVS. In fact, I think it's a bad idea: you want to build just
what's in CVS first, to make sure that it's working, before you start
testing any patches against it. So if this were added to buildfarm,
presumably it would build plain CVS, then start testing patches. It
could try a CVS up between each patch to see if anything changed, and
possibly start back at the top at that point.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)