Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Huh, but the patch can be applied with -R to revert it after the
> buildfarm run ... the one problem I can see is if the patch fails for
> some reason; for which I'd suggest running a patch --dry-run as a first
> step, checking that it applies cleanly, and only continue in that case.
>
>
Unfortunately, this won't fly as we rely on file timestamps to tell us
which files have changed.
Tom's idea of making a temp copy of the repo and patching that would work,
but if you're going to do that why do a vpath build anyway?
Regarding the idea of a list of approved patch authorisers, don't we have
such a group now? i.e. "committers".
cheers
andrew