Re: ideas for auto-processing patches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Glaesemann
Subject Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Date
Msg-id B48866FB-A58D-41DC-9D30-E255D21888AC@seespotcode.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ideas for auto-processing patches  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
Responses Re: ideas for auto-processing patches  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jan 8, 2007, at 19:25 , Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> Actually, I see point in both... I'd think you'd want to know if a  
> patch
> worked against the CVS checkout it was written against.

Regardless, it's unlikely that the patch was tested against all of  
the platforms available on the build farm. If it fails on some of the  
build|patch farm animals, or if it fails due to bitrot, the point is  
it fails: whatever version the patch was generated against is pretty  
much moot: the patch needs to be fixed. (And isn't the version number  
included in the patch if generated as a diff anyway?)

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Widen the money type to 64 bits.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] README for vcbuild