Re: "make check" changes have caused buildfarm deterioration.

On 7/21/15 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree; this change may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but
> it was not.  Failures during "make check"'s install step are rare enough
> that you don't really need all that output in your face to help with the
> rare situation where it fails.  And for the buildfarm's purposes, it is
> surely desirable to segregate that output from the actual check step.

It wasn't really an idea; it was just not necessary anymore.  We can put
it [directing the make install output into a file] back if that's what
people prefer.

> A possible alternative is to run the "make install" sub-step with -s,
> but that could be objected to on the grounds that if it did fail, you'd
> have a hard time telling exactly which step failed.

I usually run the whole make check with -s.