Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >
> >> My post below was merely to agree with Tom that in principle, patches
> >> should be be reviewed before application and not after. I still think
> >> that's right - I have been concerned lately that the buildfarm has been
> >> broken a bit too much.
> >>
> >
> > Well, just because they are reviewed doesn't mean they aren't going to
> > break the build farm. In fact, the build farm is there to be broken ---
> > if all patches worked fine on all machines, we wouldn't need the build
> > farm. Let's not get into a case where keeping the build farm green is
> > our primary goal, "Oh, let's not apply that patch or it might break the
> > build farm". Hey, I have an idea, let's stop CVS update on the build
> > farm, and it will stay green forever. :-) LOL (Of course, we don't
> > want the build farm to stay broken or it masks newly introduced errors.)
> >
>
> I certainly expect buildfarm to break. But it is not intended as a
> substitute for review either. We shouldn't be in the business of saying
> "let's apply it and see if buildfarm breaks". We should be saying "I
> have looked at this and my best guess is that it won't break." That
> won't avoid all breakage, certainly. But it will keep it down.
Are you saying that's what is happening, that people aren't reviewing
and letting the buildfarm catch it. I have seen that only in cases
where we can't guess how an platform will be affected by the patch.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
