Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Date: 2007-01-11 01:37:25
Message-ID: F5E7657F-FB24-43DA-B210-A2734A797A51@seespotcode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:35 , Richard Troy wrote:

>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:04:41AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I was thinking that knowing it did work at one time would be
>> useful, but
>> maybe that's not the case...
>>
>
> "Has it ever worked" is the singularly most fundamental technical
> support
> question; yes, it has value.

You'd be able to see whether or not it ever worked by when the patch
first hit the patch farm.

> One question here - rhetorical, perhaps - is; What changed and when?

This is recorded in the current build farm.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-11 02:40:38 Re: [PATCHES] Building libpq/psql with Borland BCC5
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2007-01-11 01:37:15 Re: Request for review: tsearch2 patch