Thread
-
RE: beta5 ...
Michael Ansley (UK) <michael.ansley@intec-telecom-systems.com> — 2001-02-20T16:26:10Z
Would there be any value in setting up a project on sourceforge to make use of their compile farm? I know that it doesn't cover all platforms, but it would perhaps be a start to mechanical compile and regression testing. Just a thought... MikeA -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: 20 February 2001 15:51 To: Justin Clift Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta5 ... >> As a matter of curiosity, is each beta compiled and then regression >> tested against *every* one of the known "supported" platforms before >> release? Who are you expecting to do that, exactly? One of the differences between Postgres and a proprietary commercial database is that there is no vast support machinery behind the scenes. What you see going on on this list is what you get: beta testing consists of the activities performed and reported by list members. Normally, if we are about to push out a beta then two or three people will double-check that the current CVS tip builds and passes regression on their personal machines. But the "supported platforms" coverage depicted in the docs consists of all the platforms that are reported to us as working during the entire beta test period, including many that the key developers have no direct access to. There's no way that we could reverse the process and cause that to happen before a beta release instead of after; certainly no way that we could cause all that effort to be repeated for each beta version. If you are using a beta version then you are part of that testing process, not a beneficiary of something that's happened behind closed doors. regards, tom lane ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify Nick West - Global Infrastructure Manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
-
Re: beta5 ...
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2001-02-20T16:40:22Z
> Would there be any value in setting up a project on sourceforge to > make use of their compile farm? I know that it doesn't cover all > platforms, but it would perhaps be a start to mechanical compile and > regression testing. I haven't looked at the platforms available in the compile farm recently, but afaik regression coverage for over half a dozen platforms already happens without (extra) effort: Tom Lane has three or more platforms, I've got Linux, Bruce has BSDI, Marc has FreeBSD, we have some active W32 developers, etc etc. What would SF add to this mix? - Thomas -
Re: Re: beta5 ...
Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2001-02-20T16:57:14Z
* Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> [010220 10:51]: > > Would there be any value in setting up a project on sourceforge to > > make use of their compile farm? I know that it doesn't cover all > > platforms, but it would perhaps be a start to mechanical compile and > > regression testing. > > I haven't looked at the platforms available in the compile farm > recently, but afaik regression coverage for over half a dozen platforms > already happens without (extra) effort: Tom Lane has three or more > platforms, I've got Linux, Bruce has BSDI, Marc has FreeBSD, we have > some active W32 developers, etc etc. I have a UnixWare 7.1.1 box I run PG on.... > > What would SF add to this mix? > > - Thomas -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
-
Re: Re: beta5 ...
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-02-20T20:10:47Z
>> Would there be any value in setting up a project on sourceforge to >> make use of their compile farm? I know that it doesn't cover all >> platforms, but it would perhaps be a start to mechanical compile and >> regression testing. > I haven't looked at the platforms available in the compile farm > recently, but afaik regression coverage for over half a dozen platforms > already happens without (extra) effort: Tom Lane has three or more > platforms, I've got Linux, Bruce has BSDI, Marc has FreeBSD, we have > some active W32 developers, etc etc. I run HPUX and Linux/PPC routinely, so that's only two here. Still, we have reasonable coverage among the core team and a bunch more platforms used by active pgsql-hackers people. Also, the project does have an Alpha in-house at hub.org (if Marc ever gets it back into commission after that failed OS reinstall...) > What would SF add to this mix? The current list of machines at cf.sourceforge.net seems to be lqqqqqqqChoose compile farm server...qqqqqqqk x A. [x86] Linux 2.2 (Debian 2.2) x x C. [x86] FreeBSD (4.2-stable) x x x x G. [Alpha] Compaq Tru64 (5.1) x x H. [Alpha] Linux 2.2 (RedHat 7.0) x x x x L. [Sparc - E240] Linux 2.2 (Debian 2.2) x x M. [Sparc - E240] Sun Solaris (8) x x x x Exit x mqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqj I think I'll go try a build on that Solaris 8 machine, since we've heard some reports of problems on Solaris. However, I'm not sure that we need any organized use of their compilefarm. If they made it easy to *automatically* run build/install/regress test on multiple machines, I could see the facility being useful (especially so once a few more platforms are offered). But right now it looks like it's just shell access to platforms other than your own, which is not going to help us all that much. regards, tom lane -
Re: Re: beta5 ...
Justin Clift <aa2@bigpond.net.au> — 2001-02-21T00:35:25Z
As well as Linux I run Solaris 8 SPARC (32-bit not 64), Solaris 7 SPARC (SMP, 32-bit not 64), Solaris 7 Intel (both SMP and uni-processor) and Solaris 8 Intel (both SMP and uni-processor). I can be counted on to do testing of these as required in about 2 weeks from now, after I get a new permanent connection here. With luck I'll additionally have the finances to buy some SPARC 64-bit machines in a few months. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Database Administrator Tom Lane wrote: > > What would SF add to this mix? > > The current list of machines at cf.sourceforge.net seems to be > > lqqqqqqqChoose compile farm server...qqqqqqqk > x A. [x86] Linux 2.2 (Debian 2.2) x > x C. [x86] FreeBSD (4.2-stable) x > x x > x G. [Alpha] Compaq Tru64 (5.1) x > x H. [Alpha] Linux 2.2 (RedHat 7.0) x > x x > x L. [Sparc - E240] Linux 2.2 (Debian 2.2) x > x M. [Sparc - E240] Sun Solaris (8) x > x x > x Exit x > mqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqj > > I think I'll go try a build on that Solaris 8 machine, since we've heard > some reports of problems on Solaris. However, I'm not sure that we need > any organized use of their compilefarm. If they made it easy to > *automatically* run build/install/regress test on multiple machines, > I could see the facility being useful (especially so once a few more > platforms are offered). But right now it looks like it's just shell > access to platforms other than your own, which is not going to help us > all that much. > > regards, tom lane