Re: Proposal: Make cfbot fail on patches not created by "git format-patch"
От | Florents Tselai |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: Make cfbot fail on patches not created by "git format-patch" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 390A4940-457C-4A22-8C16-4C1845699E8A@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Make cfbot fail on patches not created by "git format-patch" (Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On 19 May 2025, at 6:10 PM, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:23 AM Aleksander Alekseev > <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote: >> In my experience people who have been contributing for some time use >> format-patch and provide at least a draft of the commit message, >> because they know it's more convenient both for the reviewers (the >> patch has better chances to be reviewed and tested), and for the >> authors to rebase the patch after a while. Newcomers sometimes submit >> patches that don't even target the `master` branch, and they don't >> know we have cfbot. > > While I don't necessarily disagree with these two endpoints, I also > think there are a number of contributors who occupy a spot somewhere > in between -- and there were _many_ people at the unconference session > who were interested in automatically communicating our community norms > in some way. I think that's enough motivation to try something like > Jelte's latest "quality check" proposal. > > —Jacob > > What would help new comers I think is having some recipes to work with git the pg-hackers way: Not many devs use format-patch and share files any more; instead they `git checkout -b` and submitt a PR which is usually merged / squash merged. Even “rebasing” is not as popular a term as one would hope. In fact, I think what would help is providing some potential “copy rebase command” tooltip for the “Needs rebase status”, similar to the “copy git checkout commands”
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: