On 07/17/2012 11:08 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 14:43, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> This seems to have broken Windows builds. (And if people need reminding,
>> cross-compiling is pretty easy:
>> <http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/264-Cross-compiling-PostgreSQL-for-WIndows.html>
>> )
> Perhaps I'm asking a naive question, but wouldn't it be easier if
> people had the opportunity to use the buildfarm without actually
> committing something? For example, perhaps the buildfarm could be made
> to run on a staging branch. Commits would actually be made to the
> staging branch. If and when the regression tests pass, the
> infrastructure then pushes the staging branch commit onto the master
> branch, and the commit is really committed - the -commiters list is
> now informed of this. If there is a problem with the buildfarm, the
> committer receives an e-mail informing them of this. The commit is
> non-destructively reverted on the staging branch.
>
> I don't know that it's worth worrying about, nor if the turnaround on
> having a commit not break the buildfarm would be generally acceptable
> in this situation. It would be nice to keep commit history cleaner,
> though.
>
I don't think we have so much breakage that it would be worth the
bother. We don't use public staging branches generally, and unless
people want to start doing so for other reasons this looks like more
work than it would save.
There is provision in the buildfarm client code for some hooks that
could be used to apply and test patches. I've never used it for that but
in theory it should be possible.
cheers
andrew
