On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:38 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:27 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > My point was that we can implement such a policy in a laissez-faire > > way: if an older BF animal isn't causing us trouble then why mess > > with it? Once we *do* recognize that it's causing us trouble, > > we can apply the still-hypothetical policy and ask the owner to > > turn it off for branches where it's out of support. > > Fair enough. This does have the disadvantage that people will still > commit things that turn the buildfarm red and have to go into panic > mode -- perhaps not even realizing which machines are running an older > OS -- and then reactively do this. However, it still sounds like > progress over where we are today, because it would (hopefully) remove > the need for an argument about each individual case.
One thing I've been wishing for recently is access to the discussion and lore around individual buildfarm animals in a consolidated place. As a new committer, I haven't been part of all of these discussions over the last N years and so if an animal goes red, I can look through the buildfarm status history to see what kind of failures it has had for the last ~6 months, but it doesn't tell me if that machine is known for failing because of an outdated OS or some other platform-specific or hardware-specific issue. For some animals searching for "skink" in the email archives might be enough, but I haven't found that to be true so far. - Melanie
