Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYi60_yy5wqEygn13wnxu6vrFbbpDp4X51PD3cz5BUoGg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Thinking further, I think changing patch status automatically may never
> be a good idea; there's always going to be some amount of common sense
> applied beforehand (such as if a conflict is just an Oid catalog
> collision, or a typo fix in a recent commit, etc).  Such conflicts will
> always raise errors with a tool, but would never cause a (decent) human
> being from changing the patch status to WoA.

Well it would perhaps be fine if sending an updated patch bounced it
right back to Needs Review.  But if things are only being auto-flipped
in one direction that's going to get tedious.

Or one could imagine having the CF app show the CI status alongside
the existing status column.

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts whensome errors occur