From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Black <daniel(dot)black(at)au1(dot)ibm(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgbuildfarm-members(at)lists(dot)pgfoundry(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] docker instances of pgbuildfarm |
Date: | 2016-09-12 01:08:33 |
Message-ID: | cfa15445-493f-0a7e-1f18-659bb0f140bc@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | buildfarm-members |
On 09/11/2016 08:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Black <daniel(dot)black(at)au1(dot)ibm(dot)com> writes:
>> Relax, the git updates are done outside of the pgbuildfarm scripts.
>> Below is the start of the log that triggered the build this morning.
> The problem with inventing your own approach here is that your buildfarm
> members' reports do not provide any evidence of what they are building
> against. Please examine
>
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
>
> and note that your animals are not showing last-commit-id in their lines
> on the summary page, and if you drill down to their build reports, those
> don't show anything about "changes since last run" either, eg compare
>
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=demoiselle&dt=2016-09-12%2000%3A36%3A03
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=guaibasaurus&dt=2016-09-12%2000%3A17%3A01
>
> That greatly reduces the usefulness of the reports.
>
>
I also don't see any point in doing this.
Please run this software as intended.
(BTW, telling someone to relax is quite offensively patronizing.)
cheers
andre
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Black | 2016-09-12 01:25:21 | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] docker instances of pgbuildfarm |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-12 00:49:34 | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] docker instances of pgbuildfarm |