From: | "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andy Colson" <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
Date: | 2008-02-11 21:37:58 |
Message-ID: | d6d6637f0802111337m645bd16cve5338b14a04beb1f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 11, 2008 9:14 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
> I dont think the buildfarm needs to require CVS. The code can be
> changed in the buildfarm to just run 'svn up' or 'git up and go' (sorry,
> never used git so I had to guess at the command :-) ) right?
The relevant commands, for several of the tools, are:
"svn update"
"git pull"
"darcs pull --all"
"hg pull"
"mtn pull"
Distributed SCMs seem to favor "pull" over "update"
The only thing about this that would be a bit tricky is that buildfarm
presently treats a certain format of output as indicating that no
changes were found. The "expected output" for other SCMs will differ
somewhat. And this isn't so vastly tricky a matter as to be
considered an obstacle.
Indeed, I think that it would be an entirely reasonable thing to
expect to modify buildfarm a little bit so that it could cope with
multiple SCMs, and for us to have a few "animals" set up specifically
to track some SCMs.
This clearly ISN'T a barrier of the sort that Jan suggested.
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2008-02-11 23:09:45 | Re: Patch review |
Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2008-02-11 21:20:19 | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |