Hi,
On 2021-10-25 10:23:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have
> buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems.
> In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to
> the branches_to_build list. Given my view of what the back-patching
> policy ought to be, a new build in an old branch might only be
> required a couple of times a year, which would not be an undue
> investment of buildfarm resources.
FWIW, if helpful I could easily specify a few additional branches to some of
my buildfarm animals. Perhaps serinus/flaviventris (snapshot gcc wo/w
optimizations) so we'd see problems coming early? I could also add
recent-clang one.
I think doing this to a few designated animals is a better idea than wasting
cycles and space on a lot of animals.
> It seems like a fresh checkout from the repo would be little more expensive
> than the current copy-a-checkout process.)
I haven't looked in detail, but from what I've seen in the logs the
is-there-anything-new check is already not cheap, and does a checkout / update
of the git directory.
Greetings,
Andres Freund