Re: buildfarm notifications

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>comments welcome (buildfarm exists to help people on this list - if you
>>want something speak up).
>>
>>
>
>There are a number of buildfarm machines that don't seem to have *ever*
>posted a successful run. In some cases this represents a genuine
>portability issue but in others it looks more like local
>misconfiguration. Can we do something to encourage people to fix these?
>
>

Yes. Thankyou for asking. Several of these have been inactive for quite
a while, and I will mark those as retired after giving their owners due
notice. Others I will chase up on a case by case basis.

We've never been completely clean on anything before REL8_0_STABLE, so
I'll be chasing the latest branches first. The obvious candidates are:

sysname | branch | latest
--------+---------------+---------------------
badger | HEAD | 2005-03-20 03:36:07
dove | HEAD | 2005-06-17 01:10:00
fantail | HEAD | 2004-12-06 23:04:43
muskrat | HEAD | 2005-01-10 22:16:41
osprey | HEAD | 2005-06-18 16:00:17
osprey | REL8_0_STABLE | 2005-06-17 22:00:17
penguin | REL8_0_STABLE | 2005-06-15 22:00:09

cheers

andrew