On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>>> Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
> >>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
> >>> used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of
> >>> complication for little or no actual gain -- net loss in fact.
> >>
> >> It doesn't just build the docs. It makes the dist snapshots too.
> >
> > Thus making the turnaround time on a docs build even slower ... ?
> >
> >> And the old script often broke badly, IIRC.
> >
> > The script broke on occasion, but the main problem was that it wasn't
> > monitored. Which is something that could have been fixed.
> >
> >> The current setup doesn't install
> >> anything if the build fails, which is a distinct improvement.
> >
> > You mean it doesn't build the docs if the code build fails? Would that
> > really be an improvement?
>
> why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build
> and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it
> are a combined thing and there is no point in pushing docs for something
> that fails even basic testing...
Most of the cases I care about are doc-only commits. Frankly, there is
a 99.9% chance thta if it was committed, it compiles. We are only
displaying the docs, so why not just test for the docs.
It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc
build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
