Tom Lane wrote: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Jim Nasby wrote: >>> More important, I see no reason to tie applying patches to pulling >>> from CVS. In fact, I think it's a bad idea: you want to build just >>> what's in CVS first, to make sure that it's working, before you start >>> testing any patches against it. > >> Actually, I think a patch would need to be designated against a >> particular >> branch and timestamp, and the buildfarm member would need to "update" to >> that on its temp copy before applying the patch. > > I think I like Jim's idea better: you want to find out if some other > applied patch has broken the patch-under-test, so I cannot see a reason > for testing against anything except branch tip. > > There certainly is value in being able to test against a non-HEAD branch > tip, but I don't see the point in testing against a back timestamp. >
OK, if the aim is to catch patch bitrot, then you're right, of course. cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
