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

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Date
Msg-id E020CEEC-9E37-4AFE-944B-150053C7BCF4@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ideas for auto-processing patches  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> cvs update isn't too bad either. I just did a substantial update on  
> a tree that had not been touched for nearly 6 months, and ethereal  
> tells me that total traffic was 7343004 bytes in 7188 packets.  
> Individual buildfarm updates are going to be much lower than that,  
> by a couple of orders of magnitude, I suspect.

More important, I see no reason to tie applying patches to pulling  
from CVS. In fact, I think it's a bad idea: you want to build just  
what's in CVS first, to make sure that it's working, before you start  
testing any patches against it. So if this were added to buildfarm,  
presumably it would build plain CVS, then start testing patches. It  
could try a CVS up between each patch to see if anything changed, and  
possibly start back at the top at that point.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum