| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Build farm |
| Date: | 2003-11-19 18:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311191912530.21224-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Maybe it wouldn't be of great value to PostgreSQL. And maybe it would. I
> have an open mind about it. I don't think incompleteness is an argument
> against it, though.
If you want to do it, by all means go for it. I'm sure it would give
everyone a fuzzy feeling to see the green lights everywhere. But
realistically, don't expect any significant practical benefits, such
cutting beta time by 10%.
The Samba build daemon suite is pretty good. We have a couple of those
hosts in our office in fact. (I think they're building PostgreSQL
regularly as well.) A tip: You might find that adopting the source code
of the Samba suite to PostgreSQL is harder than writing a new one.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-11-19 18:45:08 | Re: logical column position |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-11-19 18:11:41 | Re: logical column position |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-19 19:27:31 | Re: Build farm |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2003-11-19 17:32:30 | Re: Site designs, upgrades, and Konqueror |