On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 1:45 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl> wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 12:24, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > That outcome seems entirely horrible to me. If you want to flag the lack > > of a commit message somehow, fine, but don't prevent CI from running. > > Personally I also prefer nudges to gates.
Okay, reasonable feedback. How about we add a CI job that does a "quality check". That's much less strong, as all the other tests will still run, but people would get a failing CI job which tells them that something is wrong. We could also include a pgindent in that CI job.
+1. Knowing whether to use git am or patch to apply the patch itself will save reviewers' time.
