| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 |
| Date: | 2004-12-03 22:05:49 |
| Message-ID: | 13602.1102111549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad the buildfarm reports don't show more details about what
>> CVS pull they're using exactly.
> Snapshot is the UTC time at which the cvs pull was done.
That's good but it's of limited use to me, since the snaps are (I
presume) against the anonymous-CVS server which lags commits on the
master by I'm-not-sure-how-much.
> Clients report
> what files have changed since the last run, and also, in the case of a
> failure, what files have changed since the last successful run.
Cool, I had not seen it do that before. If we could get the CVS version
number of each mentioned file into that, it would go a long way towards
helping identify exactly what's being tested.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-03 22:06:30 | Re: Buildfarm coverage (was Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-03 22:02:05 | Re: Buildfarm coverage (was Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6) |