On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 09:37:42PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Once RC1 is out and the build farm has picked it up, we should start
> filling out our little table with the build farm results and then look
> for ways to fill the holes. Does the build farm turn on all the
> compiler optio
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
It's too bad the buildfarm reports don't show more details about what
CVS pull they're using exactly.
Snapshot is the UTC time at which the cvs pull was done.
That's good but it's of limited use to
Travis P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You'll probably find multi-OS-testing (various versions of AIX, Linux,
> MacOS X on PPC and/or PowerPC) much more important than differentiating
> particular pieces of hardware in the PPC or RS6000 category, assuming
> both 32-bit and 64-bit is covered and
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
That's good but it's of limited use to me, since the snaps are (I
presume) against the anonymous-CVS server which lags commits on the
master by I'm-not-sure-how-much.
19 * * * * /projects/update_anoncvs.sh
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Serv
On Dec 3, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
PPC tested pretty often by moi
RS6000 isn't this same as PPC?
This is the IBM Power4 and now Power5 architecture which is
different from
Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=loris&dt=2004-12-03%2020:54:53
> Lends me to think your tweek didn't push hard enough in the right spots.
Yup, you're right. I used a bigger hammer ;-)
regards, tom lane
--
"Jim Buttafuoco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have setup the following running debian linux. MIPS, MIPSEL, ALPHA,
> PARISC, M68K, ARM, SPARC, I386. I have the build farm running local
> and I have just started to get the systems registered.
Excellent, that's very good news.
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad the buildfarm reports don't show more details about what
>> CVS pull they're using exactly.
> Snapshot is the UTC time at which the cvs pull was done.
That's good but it's of limited use to me, since the snaps are (I
p
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The configuration is chosen in the config file for each member, rather
> than being dictated centrally.
This is good. Now what we need is a little cooperation among the
buildfarm team to make sure that the collective set of cases tested
covers all the
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think that this case might be fixed
by the tweaking I did yesterday, but I can't tell whether that run
occurred before or after that commit. In any case it's not a real
failure, just an output-ordering difference.
I am running it again to see. I agree that at worst it
On December 3, 2004 11:14 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On December 3, 2004 10:31 am, you wrote:
> >> 2. There are critical notices on buildfarm for some more popular
> >> platforms such as Solaris 9 and Open BSD.
> >
> > The OpenBSD error should be fixed b
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Where the buildfarm falls down a bit is on the cross-product
coverage. But I think you're not going to get the cross product
without a call for port reports; there aren't that many people who
are going to offer dedicated time on every random platform ther
verage (was Re: [HACKERS] OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6)
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. Buildfarm doesn't yet have that many platforms on it.
>
> It's not as bad as all that. Our current list of supported platforms
> (ie, thin
Tom Lane wrote:
It's too bad the buildfarm reports don't show more details about what
CVS pull they're using exactly.
Snapshot is the UTC time at which the cvs pull was done. Clients report
what files have changed since the last run, and also, in the case of a
failure, what files have change
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the build farm turn on all the
> compiler options? It really should. I'm looking for
> /configure --prefix=SOMEWHERE --enable-thread-safety --with-tcl \
> --with-perl --with-python --with-krb5 --with-pam -with-openssl
I was just thinking abo
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. Buildfarm doesn't yet have that many platforms on it.
>
> It's not as bad as all that. Our current list of supported platforms
> (ie, things that got tested last time) is
>
> AI
Tom Lane wrote:
> Where the buildfarm falls down a bit is on the cross-product
> coverage. But I think you're not going to get the cross product
> without a call for port reports; there aren't that many people who
> are going to offer dedicated time on every random platform there is.
Once RC1 is o
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Buildfarm doesn't yet have that many platforms on it.
It's not as bad as all that. Our current list of supported platforms
(ie, things that got tested last time) is
AIX
Free/Open/NetBSDcovered by buildfarm
HPUX
Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On December 3, 2004 10:31 am, you wrote:
>> 2. There are critical notices on buildfarm for some more popular
>> platforms such as Solaris 9 and Open BSD.
> The OpenBSD error should be fixed by
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/i
On December 3, 2004 10:31 am, you wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>>OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
> >>>items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or
> >>>Beta6?
> >>
> >>Considering all the
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or
Beta6?
Considering all the patching that has been going on recently and the
fact that we don't have an
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or
Beta6?
Considering all the patching that has been going on recently and the
fact that we don't have
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
> > items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or
> > Beta6?
>
> Considering all the patching that has been going on recently and the
> fact that we don't have
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
> items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or
> Beta6?
Considering all the patching that has been going on recently and the
fact that we don't have any port reports, I think it's too ear
OK, where are we in the release process? We still have a few open
items, but those can be moved to the TODO list. Do we do RC1 or Beta6?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive,
25 matches
Mail list logo
