On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> wrote: > On 4/17/14, 9:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> But the ability to easily spin up temporary branches for testing would >>>> >>also be great. Unfortunately, I suspect that only a minority of the >>>> >>buildfarm owners would choose to participate, which would make it less >>>> >>useful, but if we could solve that problem I'd be all in favor of it. >>>> >>> >... Of course, all this would be done in my copious spare time*cough*. >>> I'm >>> >>> >not sure this would be the best use of it. >>> >> I agree that this would not be worth the effort needed to make it happen. >> > > There's also a sizeable security risk there, of someone putting something > malicious in a branch and then triggering a run from that branch. I suppose > that could be overcome if this was purposefully limited to the main git > repo that only our core committers had access to, but we'd need to be > careful.
I would suggest a separate repo to keep the main one "clean", but other than that, yes, it would have to be limited to the same committers as the rest I think. It's reasonably easy to set up build environments in containers/jais on many Unix boxes where that would actually not be a problem (just blow the whole jail away once the build is complete), but one of the main platforms that people would want to use this on I bet is Windows, which has no such facilities AFAIK. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
