On 11/17/21 02:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> The oldest version tested by the buildfarm is 9.2, so we could ignore
> this part I guess?
>
> Andrew, what do you think about this part? Based on my read of this
> thread, there is an agreement that this approach makes the buildfarm
> code more manageable so as committers would not need to patch the
> buildfarm code if their test fail. I agree with this conclusion, but
> I wanted to double-check with you first. This would need a backpatch
> down to 10 so as we could clean up a maximum of code in
> TestUpgradeXversion.pm without waiting for an extra 5 years. Please
> note that I am fine to send a patch for the buildfarm client.
>
>
In general I'm in agreement with the direction here. If we can have a
script that applies to back branches to make them suitable for upgrade
testing instead of embedding this in the buildfarm client, so much the
better.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com