On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj> wrote: > Really? You genuinely don't have time to paste, say: > > mkdir -p ~/src/pgdevel > cd ~/src/pgdevel > wget https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/snapshot/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > tar xjf postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > mkdir bld > cd bld > ../postgresql-9.5devel/configure $(pg_config --configure | sed -e > 's/\(pg\|postgresql[-> \/]\)\(doc-\)\?9\.[0-9]*\(dev\)\?/\1\29.5dev/g') > make world > make check > make world-install > > and yet you think you have enough time to provide more than a "looks like > it's working" report to the developers?
Adding steps to an existing process to fetch and build from source is significantly more complicated then flipping a version number. And I'm not trying to run PG's built in tests on my machine. I want to run the tests for my applications, and ideally, my applications themselves. If doing so leads me to find that something doesn't work then of course I would research and report the cause. At that point it's something that I know will directly effect me if it's not fixed! > Well yes, automated packaging of the nightly build, that doesn't involve the > developers having to stop what they're doing to write official alpha release > docs or any of the other stuff that goes along with doing a release, would be > zero-impact on development (assuming the developers didn't have to build or > maintain the auto-packager) and therefore any return (however small) would > make it worthwhile. > Fancy building (and maintaining) the auto-packaging system, and managing a > mailing list for its users? I don't have much experience in setting things like this up so I'm not one to estimate the work load involved. If it existed though, I'd use it. Regards, -- Sehrope Sarkuni Founder & CEO | JackDB, Inc. | https://www.jackdb.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
