| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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: | 2012-09-05 22:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5047CE81.1050903@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
>> used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of
>> complication for little or no actual gain -- net loss in fact.
>
> It doesn't just build the docs. It makes the dist snapshots too.
Thus making the turnaround time on a docs build even slower ... ?
> And the old script often broke badly, IIRC.
The script broke on occasion, but the main problem was that it wasn't
monitored. Which is something that could have been fixed.
> The current setup doesn't install
> anything if the build fails, which is a distinct improvement.
You mean it doesn't build the docs if the code build fails? Would that
really be an improvement?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-05 22:17:07 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-09-05 21:59:29 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |