Re: Adding CI to our tree

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> It's not like this forces you to use cirrus or anything. For people that don't
> want to use CI, It'll make cfbot a bit more effective (because people can
> adjust what it tests as appropriate for $patch), but that's it.

Yeah. I cannot see any reason to object to Andres' 0002 patch: you can
just ignore those files if you don't want to use cirrus. It does set a
precedent that we'd also accept infrastructure for other CI systems,
but as long as they're similarly noninvasive, why not? (Maybe there
needs to be one more directory level though, ie ci/cirrus/whatever.
I don't want to end up with one toplevel directory per CI platform.)

I don't know enough about Windows to evaluate 0001, but I'm a little
worried about it because it looks like it's changing our *production*
error handling on that platform.

As for 0003, wasn't that committed already?

regards, tom lane