| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Newhouse, Robin" <robinnew(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Kekalainen, Otto" <ottoke(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add GitLab CI to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2023-07-06 15:19:13 |
| Message-ID: | fb4d96ac-5b6e-891f-b84e-b3dcdf6d98e4@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06.07.23 13:32, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> This seems very RedHat-centric, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Also, shouldn't at least some of these recipes call dnf and dnf-builddep instead of yum and yum-build-dep?
>> I don't think it's bad to add an automated test suite for redhat-based images?
>
> I didn't suggest it wasn't just that the coverage should be broader.
If we were to accept this (or other providers besides Cirrus), then I
think they should run the exact same configurations that we have for
Cirrus right now (or possibly subsets or supersets, depending on
availability and capabilities). Those have been put there with a lot of
care to get efficient and reasonably broad coverage. There is no point
in starting that whole journey over again.
If someone thinks we should have more coverage for Red Hat-based
platforms, then let's put that into the Cirrus configuration. That
should be independent of the choice of CI provider.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-06 15:27:33 | Re: Avoid overflow with simplehash |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-07-06 15:16:26 | Re: Avoid overflow with simplehash |