Hi,
On 2025-03-06 14:13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Maybe invent a build-farm.conf option like "newest_branch_to_build"?
>
> > Yes, that would be nice. I also think we should mandate the use of
> > that option for OS versions that are EOL for more than X years, for
> > some to-be-determined value of X, like maybe 3 or something.
>
> It's hard to "mandate" anything in a distributed project like this.
> I don't really see a need to either, at least for cases where an
> old animal isn't causing us extra work.
Lapwing *has* caused extra work though, repeatedly.
> When it does, though, it'd be nice to be able to decide "we're not gonna
> support that OS version beyond PG nn", and then have a simple recipe to give
> the BF owner that's less drastic than "shut it down".
The BF is there to be useful for PG development. BF owners contribute them for
that purpose. I don't think we need to keep animals alive when they're past
their shelf life, just to make the animal's owners happy - I suspect most
won't want to keep an animal alive that we don't want.
That said, I'd be happy if the BF had a slightly easier way to configure "up
to this major version".
Greetings,
Andres
