Re: ideas for auto-processing patches
От | Michael Glaesemann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F5E7657F-FB24-43DA-B210-A2734A797A51@seespotcode.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches (Richard Troy <rtroy@ScienceTools.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:35 , Richard Troy wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:04:41AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote: >>>> Wouldn't there be some value to knowing whether the patch failed >>>> due to >>>> bitrot vs it just didn't work on some platforms out of the gate? >>> >>> I'm having a hard time figuring out what that value would be. How >>> would that knowledge affect what's needed to fix the patch? >> >> I was thinking that knowing it did work at one time would be >> useful, but >> maybe that's not the case... >> > > "Has it ever worked" is the singularly most fundamental technical > support > question; yes, it has value. You'd be able to see whether or not it ever worked by when the patch first hit the patch farm. > One question here - rhetorical, perhaps - is; What changed and when? This is recorded in the current build farm. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: