Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: Jim C(dot) Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Date: 2007-01-09 04:40:16
Message-ID: B48866FB-A58D-41DC-9D30-E255D21888AC@seespotcode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Jan 8, 2007, at 19:25 , Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> Actually, I see point in both... I'd think you'd want to know if a
> patch
> worked against the CVS checkout it was written against.

Regardless, it's unlikely that the patch was tested against all of
the platforms available on the build farm. If it fails on some of the
build|patch farm animals, or if it fails due to bitrot, the point is
it fails: whatever version the patch was generated against is pretty
much moot: the patch needs to be fixed. (And isn't the version number
included in the patch if generated as a diff anyway?)

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-09 05:57:47 Re: README for vcbuild
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-09 03:35:12 Re: pgsql: Widen the money type to 64 bits.