Hi,
On 2024-05-24 10:30:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
I've now applied the guc fix to all branches and the CI changes to 15+.
Thanks Bilal!
Greetings,
Andres
