Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

From: markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com
To: "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Date: 2007-01-05 03:25:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/4/07, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1. Pull source directly from repositories (cvs, git, etc.)  PLM
> > >> doesn't really track actually scm repositories.  It requires
> > >> directories of source code to be traversed, which are set up by
> > >> creating mirrors.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that a better approach might be to mirror the CVS repo --
> > > or at least make that an option -- and pull the sources locally. Having to
> > > pull down >100MB of data for every build might be onerous to some build
> > > farm members.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I am not clear about what is being proposed. Currently buildfarm syncs
> > against (or pulls a fresh copy from, depending on configuration) either
> > the main anoncvs repo or a mirror (which you can get using cvsup or rsync,
> > among other mechanisms). I can imagine a mechanism in which we pull
> > certain patches from a patch server (maybe using an RSS feed, or a SOAP
> > call?) which could be applied before the run. I wouldn't want to couple
> > things much more closely than that.
> With PLM, you could test patches against various code branches. I'd
> guessed Mark would want to provide this capability.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

> Pulling branches from
> anonvcvs regularly might be burdensome bandwidth-wise. So, like you say, a
> local mirror would be beneficial for patch testing.

Right some sort of local mirror would definitely speed things up.

> > The patches would need to be vetted first, or no sane buildfarm owner will
> > want to use them.
> It would be nice if there could be a class of trusted users whose patches
> would not have to be vetted.

PLM's authentication is tied to OSDL's internal authentication system,
but some I imagine setting up accounts and trusting specific users
would be an easy first try.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-01-05 03:28:46
Subject: Re: 8.3 pending patch queue
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-01-05 03:25:05
Subject: Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group