| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
| Date: | 2025-02-06 12:53:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQRy_19u709T6FzTKWDUqgi7vWHMO1nPaijucaORT-R6Xw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 01:29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > Evidently this new policy is why my skip scan patch series wasn't
> > being tested by CI.
>
> Well no, the reason CI wasn't testing anything was the cfbot was
> broken. See nearby "CFBot is broken" thread.
That's not entirely true. CFBot never runs on patches that are only in
closed commitfests. So even if it had been working fine, it would have
not picked up Peter G's skip scan patch until after he moved the patch
to the new commitfest.
I definitely agree with Peter G that that's a problem i.e. having
CFBot not run on patches for ~X days until the author notices they
were not moved and moves them. Ofcourse the CFBot could be changed to
behave differently, but then the question becomes how should it behave
then? When do we want to stop running CFBot on patches?
Related: What do we do in general with patches that have been moved?
And when do we do that?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2025-02-06 13:03:11 | Re: Virtual generated columns |
| Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2025-02-06 12:39:05 | Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io |