Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25089.1505230233@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest
Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes: >>> === Apply Failed: 29 === >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1235/ (Support arrays over domain types) >> Can you clarify what went wrong for you on that one? I went to rebase it, >> but I end up with the identical patch except for a few line-numbering >> variations. > I think "git apply" refuses to apply a patch if it doesn't apply > exactly. So you could use "git apply -3" (which merges) or just plain > old "patch" and the patch would work fine. > If the criteria is that strict, I think we should relax it a bit to > avoid punting patches for pointless reasons. IOW I think we should at > least try "git apply -3". FWIW, I always initially apply patches with good ol' patch(1). So for me, whether that way works would be the most interesting thing. Don't know about other committers' workflows. > Also, at this point this should surely be just an experiment. +1 ... seems like there's enough noise here that changing patch status based on the results might be premature. Still, I applaud the effort. One thing I'm a tad worried about is automatically running trojan-horsed submissions. I hope the CI bot is tightly sandboxed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: