On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > I've always been a bit reluctant to accept buildfarm members that are > constantly being updated, because it seemed to me that it created something > with too many variables. However, we occasionally get requests from people > who want to run on such platforms, and I'm also a bit reluctant to turn away > willing volunteers. We have one such application now in hand. > > What do people think about this. Is it valuable to have? Do we have enough > stability from the buildfarm members that are not auto-updated that we can > accept a certain number of auto-updating members, where, if something > breaks, and it doesn't break elsewhere, then we suspect that something that > got upgraded broke the build? > > I'm also not sure how to designate these machines. The buildfarm server > metadata isn't designed for auto-updating build platforms. But no doubt if > necessary we can come up with something.
Off-hand, it seems like we could give it a try, and abandon the effort if it proves too problematic. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
