Hi,
On 2022-01-22 22:37:19 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 08:55:26AM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI, I've attached this thread to the CF item as an informational one,
> > > but as there are some patches posted here, folks may get confused. For
> > > those who have landed here with no context, I feel obliged to mention
> > > that now there are two alternative patch series posted under the same
> > > CF item:
> > >
> > > * the original one lives in [1], waiting for reviews since the last May
> > > * an alternative one posted here from Floris
> >
> > Ah, I indeed wasn't sure of which patchset(s) should actually be reviewed.
> > It's nice to have the alternative approach threads linkied in the commit fest,
> > but it seems that the cfbot will use the most recent attachments as the only
> > patchset, thus leaving the "original" one untested.
> >
> > I'm not sure of what's the best approach in such situation. Maybe creating a
> > different CF entry for each alternative, and link the other cf entry on the cf
> > app using the "Add annotations" or "Links" feature rather than attaching
> > threads?
>
> I don't mind having all of the alternatives under the same CF item, only
> one being tested seems to be only a small limitation of cfbot.
IMO it's pretty clear that having "duelling" patches below one CF entry is a
bad idea. I think they should be split, with inactive approaches marked as
returned with feeback or whatnot.
Either way, currently this patch fails on cfbot due to a new GUC:
https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5134905372835840/log/src/test/recovery/tmp_check/regression.diffs
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5134905372835840
Greetings,
Andres Freund
