Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 41B0D482.2050304@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6
Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > >It's too bad the buildfarm reports don't show more details about what >CVS pull they're using exactly. > Snapshot is the UTC time at which the cvs pull was done. Clients report what files have changed since the last run, and also, in the case of a failure, what files have changed since the last successful run. See for example http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dog&dt=2004-12-03%2000:06:02 The Windows and Cygwin clients are not currently doing this, as they are running experimental code in which it has been temporarily disabled. I guess I could actually get CVS revision info via cvs status for these files and report it, if you think that would be useful. This at least is one case where another SCR system than CVS would be nicer - in SVN for example you would just report the tree id. >I think that this case might be fixed >by the tweaking I did yesterday, but I can't tell whether that run >occurred before or after that commit. In any case it's not a real >failure, just an output-ordering difference. > > I am running it again to see. I agree that at worst it would require an alternative output file, assuming we aren't bothered by these ordering differences. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: