Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
От | markwkm@gmail.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 70c01d1d0701151252u5977f311odd01a256f82b95f8@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/12/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > markwkm@gmail.com wrote: > > What do you think about setting up the buildfarm clients > > with the users they are willing to test patches for, as opposed to > > having the patch system track who is are trusted users? My thoughts > > are the former is easier to implement and that it allows anyone to use > > the buildfarm to test a patch for anyone, well each buildfarm client > > user permitting. > > We can do this, but the utility will be somewhat limited. The submitters > will still have to be known and authenticated on the patch server. I > think you're also overlooking one of the virtues of the buildfarm, > namely that it does its thing unattended. If there is a preconfigured > set of submitters/vetters then we can rely on them all to do their > stuff. If it's more ad hoc, then when Joe Bloggs submits a spiffy new > patch every buildfarm owner that wanted to test it would need to go and > add him to their configured list of patch submitters. This doesn't seem > too workable. Ok so it really wasn't much work to put together a SOAP call that'll return patches from everyone, a trusted group, or a specified individual. I put together a short perl example that illustrates some of this: http://folio.dyndns.org/example.pl.txt How does that look? Regards, Mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: