On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 02:28:20PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2025-03-06 14:13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> Maybe invent a build-farm.conf option like "newest_branch_to_build"? > > > > > Yes, that would be nice. I also think we should mandate the use of > > > that option for OS versions that are EOL for more than X years, for > > > some to-be-determined value of X, like maybe 3 or something. > > > > It's hard to "mandate" anything in a distributed project like this. > > I don't really see a need to either, at least for cases where an > > old animal isn't causing us extra work. > > Lapwing *has* caused extra work though, repeatedly. > > > > When it does, though, it'd be nice to be able to decide "we're not gonna > > support that OS version beyond PG nn", and then have a simple recipe to give > > the BF owner that's less drastic than "shut it down". > > The BF is there to be useful for PG development. BF owners contribute them for > that purpose. I don't think we need to keep animals alive when they're past > their shelf life, just to make the animal's owners happy - I suspect most > won't want to keep an animal alive that we don't want.
I indeed don't want to keep lapwing up unless there is any value. Note that it started to fail on 2 branches after the last buildfarm client update for reasons I don't understand. Since everyone is complaining about lapwing already I will just turn it off. If anyone is interested in keeping it up on REL_13_STABLE until its EOL (so for the next ~6 months) let me know.
