Re: Build farm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Build farm
Date: 2003-11-21 18:47:48
Message-ID: 23062.1069440468@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Maybe it wouldn't be of great value to PostgreSQL. And maybe it would. I
>> have an open mind about it. I don't think incompleteness is an argument
>> against it, though.

> If you want to do it, by all means go for it. I'm sure it would give
> everyone a fuzzy feeling to see the green lights everywhere. But
> realistically, don't expect any significant practical benefits, such
> cutting beta time by 10%.

I think the main value of a build farm is that we'd get nearly immediate
feedback about the majority of simple porting problems. Your previous
arguments that it wouldn't smoke everything out are certainly valid ---
but we wouldn't abandon the regression tests just because they don't
find everything. Immediate feedback is good because a patch can be
fixed while it's still fresh in the author's mind.

I'm for it ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-21 18:50:02 Re: logical column position
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-21 18:37:12 Re: initdb segfaults - latest cvs

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-21 19:08:28 Re: Release cycle length
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2003-11-21 18:32:38 Re: Release cycle length