X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FF3D1B4E6 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64776-04 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4442AD1B555 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:47:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hALIlm19023063; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:47:48 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Build farm In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:18:28 +0100" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:47:48 -0500 Message-ID: <23062.1069440468@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/1198 X-Sequence-Number: 47486 Peter Eisentraut writes: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> Maybe it wouldn't be of great value to PostgreSQL. And maybe it would. I >> have an open mind about it. I don't think incompleteness is an argument >> against it, though. > If you want to do it, by all means go for it. I'm sure it would give > everyone a fuzzy feeling to see the green lights everywhere. But > realistically, don't expect any significant practical benefits, such > cutting beta time by 10%. I think the main value of a build farm is that we'd get nearly immediate feedback about the majority of simple porting problems. Your previous arguments that it wouldn't smoke everything out are certainly valid --- but we wouldn't abandon the regression tests just because they don't find everything. Immediate feedback is good because a patch can be fixed while it's still fresh in the author's mind. I'm for it ... regards, tom lane