Marc Munro wrote:
On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 08:56 -0300, Heikki Linnakangaspgsql wrote:
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:36 +0100
From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If we had a 1-2 lines status blurp attached to each patch in the
queue,
like "waiting for review", "author is fixing issue XX", etc., that
might
help. Bruce would need to do that if we keep the current patch queue
system unmodified otherwise, or we'd need to switch to something else.
Would it be possible to also automatically determine some sort of
bit-rot status? What I had in mind was an automated process that would
apply each patch to HEAD on a daily basis and report whether the patch
still applies cleanly and still allows all regression tests to pass on
at least one platform. If and when the result of these tests changes
from pass to fail, the patch submitter would be automatically
notified.
The patch status could then also show the last time at which the patch
applied cleanly, and the last time that regression tests ran
successfully.
This or something similar has been discussed in the past w.r.t. the
buildfarm. One major problem is that most sane system owners won't want
to apply, compile and run an arbitrary patch. It could well have an
intended or unintended trojan horse, for example. So you'd need some
level of sanity checking to be done by some trusted person even to get
it to this stage.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
