From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Update Windows CI Task Names: Server 2022 + VS 2022 Upgrade |
Date: | 2025-09-18 12:30:43 |
Message-ID: | asviy3bnlzpu6kd5ugy6yfs6zs34lcmmu7o63tzxxqpfda44ny@kopzs7pxsswn |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-09-15 11:50:07 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 17:55, Jacob Champion
> <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 7:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> > > I don't think we need this level of complication. We already have the
> > > situation that for example "linux" covers several tasks
> >
> > Recently, I've wished that it were otherwise; if I'm debugging a
> > Meson-only test failure in Linux, I don't want to burn credits running
> > Autoconf.
>
> I agree with Jacob. I think it would be better if each task had its
> own tag. I left it as "vs2019" for now.
I don't really agree that this is something that needs to be changed as part
of this. Or that the CI_OS_ONLY is really the way to tackle this.
Perhaps we should just have CI_TASK_ONLY and CI_OS_ONLY?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2025-09-18 12:31:55 | Re: [PATCH] Check that index can return in get_actual_variable_range() |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-09-18 12:25:37 | Re: someone else to do the list of acknowledgments |