Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it
Date: 2006-07-16 17:12:24
Message-ID: 44BA7378.9070800@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Tom Lane
> Sent: Sun 7/16/2006 3:29 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [HACKERS] Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it
>
>
>> AFAICT, snake is the only Windows machine that
>> actually runs the buildfarm on a regular schedule, and even it is just
>> running once a day.
>>
>
> I can bump that up as high as you'd like within reason. 4? 6 times a day?
>
>

Let's go for 6, at least for HEAD. Under normal use buildfarm doesn't
actually do anything unless it detects a change in the source, and it
makes sure there isn't a collision by using a lockfile. That means it is
safe to schedule builds fairly frequently.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-07-16 17:46:31 Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2006-07-16 17:05:01 Re: Windows buildfarm support, or lack of it