Horton

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>

View thread
From: Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-04T15:01:32Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow "make check"-style testing to work with musl C library.

  2. Fix compiler warnings on MSYS2

Tom Lane:
> That is not the concern here.  What I think Peter is worried about,
> and certainly what I'm worried about, is that a breakage in
> SanityCheck comprehensively breaks all CI testing for all Postgres
> developers.

You'd have to commit a failing patch first to break CI for all other 
developers. If you're only going to commit patches that pass those CI 
tasks, then this is not going to happen. Then it only becomes a question 
of how much feedback *you* get from a single CI run of your own patch.

> To be blunt, I do not think we need to test musl in the CI pipeline.
> I see it as one of the niche platforms that the buildfarm exists
> to test.

I don't really have an opinion on this. I'm fine with having musl in the 
buildfarm only. I don't expect the core build itself to fail with musl 
anyway, this has been working fine for years. Andres asked for it to be 
added to CI, so maybe he sees more value on top of just "building with 
musl"?

Best,

Wolfgang