Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st
Date: 2026-06-03 18:12:43
Message-ID: CAOYmi+mxcFmqvtTeVwv4yvVWW0vA3kyx9RZUBYU36HREG3H3aA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:43 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2026-06-02 20:08:17 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > + # FIXME: Should we also run on PRs?
> >
> > I don't know why we would, since we don't use them.
>
> From what I can tell the workflow of plenty folks during their own development
> is to open PRs in their own repo. I don't really see a downside to also
> running on PRs, so I'm inclined to do so. Won't hurt us...

I guess I'll pipe up again to mention that we have a lot of downstream
forks. Are we certain that GitHub isn't going to opt them all into
test-every-stable-commit-and-PR on their next sync?

(There was no reply to my previous email on this, so I can't tell if
I'm just way off base. A GitHub discussion on this [1] shows
considerable confusion on how the opt-in occurs; whether it occurs for
all forks, or just new forks after we introduce the workflow; and
whether or not that protection for new forks is itself buggy.)

Thanks,
--Jacob

[1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/26704

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-06-03 18:17:53 Re: Use ereport() instead of elog() for invalid weights in setweight()
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2026-06-03 18:08:13 Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3