On 11/17/21 02:01, Michael Paquier wrote: > > The oldest version tested by the buildfarm is 9.2, so we could ignore > this part I guess? > > Andrew, what do you think about this part? Based on my read of this > thread, there is an agreement that this approach makes the buildfarm > code more manageable so as committers would not need to patch the > buildfarm code if their test fail. I agree with this conclusion, but > I wanted to double-check with you first. This would need a backpatch > down to 10 so as we could clean up a maximum of code in > TestUpgradeXversion.pm without waiting for an extra 5 years. Please > note that I am fine to send a patch for the buildfarm client. > >
In general I'm in agreement with the direction here. If we can have a script that applies to back branches to make them suitable for upgrade testing instead of embedding this in the buildfarm client, so much the better. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
