[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] TAP test breakage on MacOS X
From:       Andrew Dunstan <andrew () dunslane ! net>
Date:       2014-10-31 13:25:49
Message-ID: 54538DDD.2090601 () dunslane ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


On 10/30/2014 09:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-10-30 21:03:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> On 2014-10-30 20:13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> As I said upthread, that approach seems to me to be contrary to the
>>>> project policy about how configure should behave.
>>> I don't think that holds much water. There's a fair amount of things
>>> that configure detects automatically. I don't think the comparison to
>>> plperl or such is meaningful - that's a runtime/install time
>>> difference. These tests are not.
>> Meh.  Right now, it's easy to dismiss these tests as unimportant,
>> figuring that they play little part in whether the completed build
>> is reliable.  But that may not always be true.  If they do become
>> a significant part of our test arsenal, silently omitting them will
>> not be cool for configure to do.
> Well, I'm all for erroring out if somebody passed --enable-foo-tests and
> the prerequisites aren't there. What I *am* against is requiring an
> explicit flag to enable them because then they'll just not be run in
> enough environments. And that's what's much more likely to cause
> unnoticed bugs.

When this is properly sorted out I will enable this in the buildfarm 
default configuration. So I don't think that's going to be an issue in 
the long term.



cheers

andrew



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]