From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |
Date: | 2007-01-17 19:50:25 |
Message-ID: | 45AE7E01.1070000@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>> > What do you think about setting up the buildfarm clients
>> > with the users they are willing to test patches for, as opposed to
>> > having the patch system track who is are trusted users? My thoughts
>> > are the former is easier to implement and that it allows anyone to use
>> > the buildfarm to test a patch for anyone, well each buildfarm client
>> > user permitting.
>>
>> We can do this, but the utility will be somewhat limited. The submitters
>> will still have to be known and authenticated on the patch server. I
>> think you're also overlooking one of the virtues of the buildfarm,
>> namely that it does its thing unattended. If there is a preconfigured
>> set of submitters/vetters then we can rely on them all to do their
>> stuff. If it's more ad hoc, then when Joe Bloggs submits a spiffy new
>> patch every buildfarm owner that wanted to test it would need to go and
>> add him to their configured list of patch submitters. This doesn't seem
>> too workable.
>
> Ok so it really wasn't much work to put together a SOAP call that'll
> return patches from everyone, a trusted group, or a specified
> individual. I put together a short perl example that illustrates some
> of this:
> http://folio.dyndns.org/example.pl.txt
>
> How does that look?
>
Looks OK in general, although I would need to know a little more of the
semantics. I get back a structure that looks like what's below.
One thing: the patch server will have to run over HTTPS - that way we
can know that it is who it says it is.
cheers
andrew
$VAR1 = [
bless( {
'repository_id' => '1',
'created_on' => '2007-01-15T19:40:09-08:00',
'diff' => 'dummied out',
'name' => 'copy_nowal.v1.patch',
'owner_id' => '1',
'id' => '1',
'updated_on' => '2007-01-15T11:40:10-08:00'
}, 'Patch' ),
bless( {
'repository_id' => '1',
'created_on' => '2007-01-15T19:40:09-08:00',
'diff' => 'dummied out',
'name' => 'pgsql-bitmap-09-17.patch',
'owner_id' => '1',
'id' => '2',
'updated_on' => '2007-01-15T11:40:29-08:00'
}, 'Patch' )
];
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-17 20:00:35 | Re: Idea for fixing the Windows fsync problem |
Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-01-17 19:47:55 | Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum Improvements |