Re: Probable CF bot degradation

From: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Probable CF bot degradation
Date: 2022-03-20 12:58:01
Message-ID: CAEze2Wgr9yrXvrJWm198=_yU_eg=m9wLPp5Uxuh_F8KkA89VnQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 19:52, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Unfortunately cfbot didn't handle that failure very well and it was
> waiting for a long timeout before scheduling more jobs. It's going
> again now, and I'll try to make it more resilient against that type of
> failure...

I noticed that two of my patches (37/3543 and 37/3542) both failed due
to a bad commit on master (076f4d9). The issue was fixed an hour later
with b61e6214; but the pipeline for these patches hasn't run since.
Because doing a no-op update would only clutter people's inboxes, I
was waiting for CFBot to do its regular bitrot check; but that hasn't
happened yet after 4 days.
I understand that this is probably due to the high rate of new patch
revisions that get priority in the queue; but that doesn't quite
fulfill my want for information in this case.

Would you know how long the expected bitrot re-check period for CF
entries that haven't been updated is, or could the bitrot-checking
queue be displayed somewhere to indicate the position of a patch in
this queue?
Additionally, are there plans to validate commits of the main branch
before using them as a base for CF entries, so that "bad" commits on
master won't impact CFbot results as easy?

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-03-20 13:28:38 Re: Probable CF bot degradation
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-03-20 11:46:26 Re: pgsql: Add option to use ICU as global locale provider