Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > >> My post below was merely to agree with Tom that in principle, patches > >> should be be reviewed before application and not after. I still think > >> that's right - I have been concerned lately that the buildfarm has been > >> broken a bit too much. > >> > > > > Well, just because they are reviewed doesn't mean they aren't going to > > break the build farm. In fact, the build farm is there to be broken --- > > if all patches worked fine on all machines, we wouldn't need the build > > farm. Let's not get into a case where keeping the build farm green is > > our primary goal, "Oh, let's not apply that patch or it might break the > > build farm". Hey, I have an idea, let's stop CVS update on the build > > farm, and it will stay green forever. :-) LOL (Of course, we don't > > want the build farm to stay broken or it masks newly introduced errors.) > > > > I certainly expect buildfarm to break. But it is not intended as a > substitute for review either. We shouldn't be in the business of saying > "let's apply it and see if buildfarm breaks". We should be saying "I > have looked at this and my best guess is that it won't break." That > won't avoid all breakage, certainly. But it will keep it down.
Are you saying that's what is happening, that people aren't reviewing and letting the buildfarm catch it. I have seen that only in cases where we can't guess how an platform will be affected by the patch. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
