Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>Then I guess the question is... is it more valuable to have a working
>buildfarm environment for 7.2 and 7.3, or is the obnoxious failure
>better to spur someone into looking at it? :) Should this maybe be made
>a TODO and I'll adjust my config until someone tackles the TODO?
>
>
I don't think 7.2 and 7.3 deserve heroic efforts to get every possible
build in a green state. The main reason to run buildfarm at all on these
branches is to make sure that any maintenance changes don't break things.
>Also, what do people think about having the buildfarm track different
>compile/build options on each environment? ISTM there's value in being
>able to change-up config options to make sure that different
>combinations work. My thought is having the buildfarm configured so that
>it knows what options on a machine should work (based on external
>dependancies) and then the script can cycle through different configs.
>Of course this means the server would have to do a better job of
>tracking per-config-setting info...
>
>
I actually abandoned an earlier attempt to create a buildfarm because I
tried to cater for every possible combination. I do not want to get into
that again. Buildfarm is not going to find every problem, no matter how
hard we try. So I want to follow the KISS principle, if for no other
reason than that I would far rather be working on cool postgres features
than on the buildfarm :-) There is already a good list of features to be
worked on.
cheers
andrew