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. That said, I'd be happy if the BF had a slightly easier way to configure "up to this major version". Greetings, Andres
