Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> cvs update isn't too bad either. I just did a substantial update on
>> a tree that had not been touched for nearly 6 months, and ethereal
>> tells me that total traffic was 7343004 bytes in 7188 packets.
>> Individual buildfarm updates are going to be much lower than that,
>> by a couple of orders of magnitude, I suspect.
>
> More important, I see no reason to tie applying patches to pulling
> from CVS. In fact, I think it's a bad idea: you want to build just
> what's in CVS first, to make sure that it's working, before you start
> testing any patches against it. So if this were added to buildfarm,
> presumably it would build plain CVS, then start testing patches. It
> could try a CVS up between each patch to see if anything changed, and
> possibly start back at the top at that point.
Actually, I think a patch would need to be designated against a particular
branch and timestamp, and the buildfarm member would need to "update" to
that on its temp copy before applying the patch.
Certainly patch processing would be both optional and something done
separately from standard CVS branch processing.
cheers
andrew