On 10/25/21 11:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Actually, I think we do. If I want to test against 7.4, ISTM I want
>> to test against the last released 7.4 version, not something with
>> arbitrary later changes. Otherwise, what exactly is the point?
> 1. You're free to check out any commit you like.
>
> 2. Nothing I said can reasonably be confused with "let's allow
> arbitrary later changes."
>
>> Uh, don't we have that already? I know you can configure a buildfarm
>> animal to force a run at least every-so-often, but it's not required,
>> and I don't think it's even the default.
Yes, in fact its rather discouraged. The default is just to build when
there's a code change detected.
> Oh, OK. I wonder how that plays with the buildfarm status page's
> desire to drop old results that are more than 30 days old. I guess
> you'd just need to force a run at least every 28 days or something.
>
Well, we could do that, or we could modify the way the server does the
status. The table it's based on has the last 500 records for each branch
for each animal, so the data is there.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
