Re: buildfarm notifications

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>  
>
>>comments welcome (buildfarm exists to help people on this list - if you 
>>want something speak up).
>>    
>>
>
>There are a number of buildfarm machines that don't seem to have *ever*
>posted a successful run.  In some cases this represents a genuine
>portability issue but in others it looks more like local
>misconfiguration.  Can we do something to encourage people to fix these?
>  
>

Yes. Thankyou for asking. Several of these have been inactive for quite 
a while, and I will mark those as retired after giving their owners due 
notice. Others I will chase up on a case by case basis.

We've never been completely clean on anything before REL8_0_STABLE, so 
I'll be chasing the latest branches first. The obvious candidates are:
sysname |    branch     |       latest       --------+---------------+---------------------badger  | HEAD          |
2005-03-2003:36:07dove    | HEAD          | 2005-06-17 01:10:00fantail | HEAD          | 2004-12-06 23:04:43muskrat |
HEAD         | 2005-01-10 22:16:41osprey  | HEAD          | 2005-06-18 16:00:17osprey  | REL8_0_STABLE | 2005-06-17
22:00:17penguin| REL8_0_STABLE | 2005-06-15 22:00:09
 


cheers

andrew