Re: Buildfarm "master-next" branch?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 04/17/2014 09:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In terms of improving the buildfarm infrastructure, the thing I would
>> most like to have is more frequent runs.

IMO the best single thing that could happen for the buildfarm is if
we had more critters (at least twice as many) running a wider variety of
platforms, compilers, and configuration options than there are today.
More frequent runs would come out of that automatically.

>> ... But that would require more resources for the
>> buildfarm machines, which are provided on a strictly volunteer basis,
>> so it's hard to see how to arrange that.

I don't think we've tried hard lately to get people to sign up. Maybe
we should ask the -advocacy crew to do something.

>> But the ability to easily spin up temporary branches for testing would
>> also be great. Unfortunately, I suspect that only a minority of the
>> buildfarm owners would choose to participate, which would make it less
>> useful, but if we could solve that problem I'd be all in favor of it.

> ... Of course, all this would be done in my copious spare time *cough*. I'm
> not sure this would be the best use of it.

I agree that this would not be worth the effort needed to make it happen.

regards, tom lane