Marc Munro wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 08:56 -0300, Heikki Linnakangaspgsql wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:36 +0100
>> From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
>> To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Cc: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs
>> <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
>> PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
>> Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
>> Message-ID: <4635A65C.70005@enterprisedb.com>
>>
>
>
>> If we had a 1-2 lines status blurp attached to each patch in the
>> queue,
>> like "waiting for review", "author is fixing issue XX", etc., that
>> might
>> help. Bruce would need to do that if we keep the current patch queue
>> system unmodified otherwise, or we'd need to switch to something else.
>>
>
> Would it be possible to also automatically determine some sort of
> bit-rot status? What I had in mind was an automated process that would
> apply each patch to HEAD on a daily basis and report whether the patch
> still applies cleanly and still allows all regression tests to pass on
> at least one platform. If and when the result of these tests changes
> from pass to fail, the patch submitter would be automatically
> notified.
>
> The patch status could then also show the last time at which the patch
> applied cleanly, and the last time that regression tests ran
> successfully.
>
>
>
This or something similar has been discussed in the past w.r.t. the
buildfarm. One major problem is that most sane system owners won't want
to apply, compile and run an arbitrary patch. It could well have an
intended or unintended trojan horse, for example. So you'd need some
level of sanity checking to be done by some trusted person even to get
it to this stage.
cheers
andrew
