On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Aleksander Alekseev
<a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Unless there are any objections I'm going to give these patches "Waiting
> on Author" status today (before doing this I'll re-run the script to
> make sure that the list is up-to-date). I'm also going to write one more
> email with CC to the authors of these patches to let them know that the
> status of their patch has changed.
I vote +1 with the caveat that you should investigate each one a bit
to make sure the cfbot isn't just confused about the patch first.
I've also been poking a few threads to ask for rebases + and report
build failures etc, though I haven't been changing statuses so far.
I like your idea of automating CF state changes, but I agree with
Tomas that the quality isn't high enough yet. I think we should treat
this is a useful tool to guide humans for now, but start trying to
figure out how to integrate some kind of CI with the CF app. It
probably involves some stricter rules about what exactly constitutes a
patch submission (acceptable formats, whether/how dependencies are
allowed etc). Right now if cfbot fails to understand your patch
that's cfbot's fault, but if we were to nail down the acceptable
formats then it'd become your fault if it didn't understand your patch
:-D
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers