Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim Nasby
Тема Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
Дата
Msg-id E020CEEC-9E37-4AFE-944B-150053C7BCF4@decibel.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: ideas for auto-processing patches  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Список 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)




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Следующее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum