On 2022-Sep-28, Robert Haas wrote:
> The number of buildfarm failures that I would have avoided by checking
> CI is less than the number of extra things I had to fix to keep CI
> happy, and the serious problems were caught by the buildfarm, not by
> CI. [...] So I guess the way you're supposed to know that you need to
> update meson.build that is by looking at CI, but CI is also the only
> reason it's necessary to carry about meson.build in the first place. I
> feel like CI has not really made it in any easier to not break the
> buildfarm -- it's just provided a second buildfarm that you can break
> independently of the first one.
I have an additional, unrelated complaint about CI, which is that we
don't have anything for past branches. I have a partial hack(*), but
I wish we had something we could readily use.
(*) I just backpatched the commit that added the .cirrus.yml file, plus
some later fixes to it, and I keep that as a separate branch which I
merge with whatever other changes I want to test. I then push that to
github, and ignore the windows results when looking at cirrus-ci.com.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I am amazed at [the pgsql-sql] mailing list for the wonderful support, and
lack of hesitasion in answering a lost soul's question, I just wished the rest
of the mailing list could be like this." (Fotis)
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-06/msg00265.php)