Re: Testing with concurrent sessions

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

>> Doing this without DBI is going to be ten times harder than doing it
>> with DBI. Are we really sure that's not a viable option?

> In the buildfarm? Yes, I think so. The philosophy of the buildfarm is
> that it should do what you would do yourself by hand.
>
> And adding DBI as a requirement for running a buildfarm member would be
> a significant extra barrier to entry, ISTM. (I am very fond of DBI, and
> use it frequently, BTW)

What about something less than a requirement then? If you have it great,
you can run these extra tests. If you don't have it, no harm, no foul.

We could even bundle DBI and DBD::Pg to ensure that the minimum versions
are there. All the prerequisites should be in place for 99% of the machines:
a C compiler and Perl are the biggies, and I can't see any buildfarm members
running without those. :)

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001071014
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktF+ucACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjYOgCglyLIyGCr60og+iQSnyRgkowd
+lYAnRDjPe/XxC7gb9OBPdpZlqU0wncK
=kPIR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----