Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-23 14:36:38
Message-ID: 4A687576.9050608@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>> Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting
>>> the flex output files in CVS...
>>>
>
>
>> Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't
>> need any flex at all to build from a tarball. If developers can't
>> install flex on a *nix box they need to get out of the business.
>>
>
> I wonder if it would be helpful to have a buildfarm option whereby
> it would fetch the latest nightly-snapshot tarball and use that instead
> of a CVS pull. This would have the dual advantage of actually testing
> builds from tarballs and requiring less stuff on the buildfarm machine.
> It wouldn't be useful for more-than-once-a-day builds, but a lot of
> the machines only build that often anyhow.
>
>
>

That is certainly doable. It would be in effect a forced run, because we
would have no notion of what had changed. Presumably, this would only be
for HEAD - we don't do daily snapshots of the back branches, do we?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-23 14:39:51 Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-23 14:29:06 Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5