Re: TAP backpatching policy

Tom, Alvaro,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > My main concern is how widely is the buildfarm going to test the new
> > test frameworks. If we backpatch PostgresNode-based tests to 9.2, are
> > buildfarm animals going to need to be reconfigured to use
> > --enable-tap-tests?
>
> Yes. The animals that are doing it at all are using code more or less
> like this:
>
> if ($branch eq 'HEAD' or $branch ge 'REL9_4')
> {
> push(@{$conf{config_opts}},"--enable-tap-tests");
> }
>
> (verbatim from longfin's config script)
>
> So maybe that's an argument for not going back before 9.4. OTOH,
> you may be giving the buildfarm owners too little credit for
> willingness to update their configurations.

I'm certainly on the optomistic side of the equation here when it comes
to buildfarm owners. Generally speaking, I've seen them be pretty
reasonably responsive when asked to make a change or update something,
and a lot of them are also regular PG contributors, but even those who
aren't seem to take the buildfarm seriously and I expect an email going
out to them would certainly have a majority positive response.

Thanks!

Stephen