Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:52:46 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16] GSSAPI encryption support
Message-ID: <20180611205245.GB23356@localhost>
References: <jlg1se287n3.fsf@redhat.com>
 <CAEepm=2NkNjV97hThgHOQjk9j719wjFxVozs9LVn3YqW9egFgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <jlg603c6chf.fsf@redhat.com>
 <jlgr2lz4l6l.fsf@redhat.com>
 <CAEepm=2+FbEJsVX5B6fYW7UBXpF6osaixSXn2A297WgP+rEhxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180607210058.GE24501@localhost>
 <CAEepm=0E8ga2McBB8fuC92+R0Hj=4TxR3kWR2fpJkwGSbcZF4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYmPutv1kiU7cbNp7MGCW0ECofVXoGNi6yYPMHB_8z=Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180611171315.GA23356@localhost>
 <10fecbaa-24d0-cd86-952d-92827929a85c@2ndQuadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10fecbaa-24d0-cd86-952d-92827929a85c@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 01:31:12PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 01:13 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> >Well, all the free CIs like Travis and Appveyor do it this way.  You
> >don't have to *use* it just because the .yml files are in the source
> >tree.  But you have to have the .yml files in the source tree in order
> >to use these CIs.  It'd be nice to be able to point somewhere else for
> >them, but whatever, that's not something we get much choice in at this
> >time.
> 
> That's not true, at least for Appveyor (can't speak about travis - I have no
> first hand experience). For appveyor, you can supply a custom appveyor.yml
> file, which can be a complete URL. In fact, if you use a plain git source as
> opposed to one of the managed git services it supports, you have to do it
> that way - it ignores an appveyor.yml in your repo. I found this out the
> very hard way over the last few days, and they very kindly don't warn you at
> all about this.

OK, that's.. nice, maybe, I guess, but I'd still want version control
for these yml files -- why not have them in-tree?  I'd rather have them
in-tree unless there's a good reason not to have them there.

In other projects I definitely find it better to have these files
in-tree.

Nico
--