On 10/25/21 11:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have
>> buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems.
>> In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to
>> the branches_to_build list.
> Well, we would add them to *some* list, but not to the one used by stock
> BF members -- not only because of the diskspace issue but also because
> of the time to build. I suggest that we should have a separate
> list-of-branches file that would only be used by BF members especially
> configured to do so; and hopefully we won't allow more than a handful
> animals to do that but rather a well-chosen subset, and also maybe allow
> only GCC rather than try to support other compilers. (There's no need
> to ensure compilability on any Windows platform, for example.)
Well, we do build with gcc on Windows :-) But yes, maybe we should make
this a more opt-in process.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
