From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Date: | 2012-09-07 19:07:49 |
Message-ID: | 1347044703-sup-7928@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie sep 07 13:50:44 -0300 2012:
> There is a filter mechanism used in detecting is a run is needed, and in
> modern versions of the client (Release 4.7, one version later than
> guaibasaurus is currently using) it lets you have both include and
> exclude filters. For example, you could have this config setting:
>
> trigger_include => qr(/doc/src/),
>
> and it would then only match changed files in the docs tree.
>
> It's a global mechanism, not per step. So it will run all the steps
> (other than those you have told it to skip) if it finds any files
> changed that match the filter conditions.
Sounds good.
> If you do that you would probably want to have two animals, one doing
> docs builds only and running frequently, one doing the dist stuff much
> less frequently.
What seems to make the most sense to me is to have a separate work
directory for the buildfarm script to run, without setting up a whole
buildfarm animal. That separate dir would build only the devel docs,
triggered only by changes in doc/src, and would not do anything else.
Thus we could leave guaibasaurus alone to do dist building.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-09-07 19:31:03 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-09-07 18:47:11 | Re: txid failed epoch increment, again, aka 6291 |