Re: New CF app deployment

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> <marco.nenciarini@2ndquadrant.it> wrote:
>>
>> Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
>> >
>> > Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the
>> > attachment itself.  I've also run a job to populate all old threads.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder what is the algorithm to detect when an attachment is a patch.
>>
>> If you look at https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/94/ all the
>> attachments are marked as "Patch: no", but many of them are
>> clearly a patch.
>
> It uses the "magic" module, same as the "file" command. And that one claims:
>
> mha@mha-laptop:/tmp$ file 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v9.patch
> 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v9.patch: ASCII English text, with very
> long lines
>
> I think it doesn't consider it a patch because it's not actually a patch -
> it looks like a git-format actual email message that *contains* a patch. It
> even includes the unix From separator line. So if anything it should have
> detected that it's an email message, which it apparently doesn't.
>
> Picking from the very top patch on the cf, an actual patch looks like this:
>
> mha@mha-laptop:/tmp$ file psql_fix_uri_service_004.patch
> psql_fix_uri_service_004.patch: unified diff output, ASCII text, with very
> long lines

Can we make it smarter, so that the kinds of things people produce
intending for them to be patches are thought by the CF app to be
patches?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company