On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:49:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No; my proposal was "don't run the ABI check unless the branch has
> a .abi-compliance-history file". master would normally not contain
> such a file, thus no check. As I was just discussing with Bruce,
> we could put one there for awhile if we wanted to run ABI checks in
> advance of forking a stable branch.
>
> The reason I'm so allergic to having any of these decisions made on
> the buildfarm-client side is years of herding cats^W^W trying to get
> buildfarm owners to update their script versions and/or config files.
> It's close to hopeless. Thus, your proposal a message or three back
> to add another BF client config setting to control this sounds like
> the worst of all possible worlds. If we needed a change in the
> setting, getting the farm to converge to that would take months if not
> years. The idea that we could transiently enable checks between beta1
> and branch fork on the basis of that approach is downright risible.
> On the other hand, if the decisions are driven purely by what is in
> our git tree, a change is the work of moments.
I agree with Tom. The lack of an .abi-compliance-history file should be
taken to mean that we're not interested in maintaining ABI compatibility
across commits for that branch, and the buildfarm check should be skipped.
--
nathan
