Hi, On 2021-10-25 10:23:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have > buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems. > In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to > the branches_to_build list. Given my view of what the back-patching > policy ought to be, a new build in an old branch might only be > required a couple of times a year, which would not be an undue > investment of buildfarm resources.
FWIW, if helpful I could easily specify a few additional branches to some of my buildfarm animals. Perhaps serinus/flaviventris (snapshot gcc wo/w optimizations) so we'd see problems coming early? I could also add recent-clang one. I think doing this to a few designated animals is a better idea than wasting cycles and space on a lot of animals. > It seems like a fresh checkout from the repo would be little more expensive > than the current copy-a-checkout process.) I haven't looked in detail, but from what I've seen in the logs the is-there-anything-new check is already not cheap, and does a checkout / update of the git directory. Greetings, Andres Freund
