Hi,
On 2024-05-24 16:17:37 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm not sure what the backpatching expectations of this kind of thing is.
> The history of this CI setup is relatively short, so this hasn't been
> stressed too much. I see that we once backpatched the macOS update, but
> that might have been all.
I've backpatched a few other changes too.
> If we start backpatching this kind of thing, then this will grow as a job
> over time. We'll have 5 or 6 branches to keep up to date, with several
> operating systems. And once in a while we'll have to make additional
> changes like this warning fix you mention here. I'm not sure how much we
> want to take this on. Is there ongoing value in the CI setup in
> backbranches?
I find it extremely useful to run CI on backbranches before
batckpatching. Enough so that I've thought about proposing backpatching CI all
the way.
I don't think it's that much work to fix this kind of thing in the
backbranches. We don't need to backpatch new tasks or such. Just enough stuff
to keep e.g. the base image the same - otherwise we end up running CI on
unsupported distros, which doesn't help anybody.
> With these patches, we could do either of the following:
> 5) We update master, PG16, and PG15, but we hold all of them until the
> warning in PG15 is fixed.
I think we should apply the fix in <= 15 - IMO it's a correct compiler
warning, what we do right now is wrong.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
