On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 6:48 PM Claudio Bantaloukas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22/09/2026 16:59, Yuao Ma wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Currently, while the forge experiment allows us to conduct code > > reviews and run CI, landing approved patches still requires pushing > > manually via the CLI. > > > > I am wondering if we could enable the bot account to push/merge > > patches on our behalf. A good precedent for this is OpenJDK's > > workflow, which uses the Skara bot (open-sourced at > > https://github.com/openjdk/skara). For example, contributors can > > trigger integration directly from the PR interface: > > > > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/32721#issuecomment-5749064779 > > > > Could we explore doing something similar here? Thoughts and feedback > > are welcome. > > Hi Yuao, > thank you for your interest in gcc development and the use of the forge > for making your contributions. > > In the past year me and others tried to bridge contributions on the > forge with the mailing list by making sure that everything done on the > forge gets emailed. Some hiccups occurred but it seems to me that the > process has been working well enough for a while now. I'd love to get > feedback that this is not the case so I can address it BTW. > > With that in place, the question becomes how to get more value out of > the forge by making it easier to merge changes done there with minimal > interaction. > > This is IMO one of the main reasons why more people are not engaging > with the forge. It makes little sense to use a web based system only to > then have to manually merge the patches on the git repo. The missing > value is the ability to merge (that is, do a fast forward and then > merge, failing in the presence of conflicts, perhaps running some basic > smoke tests before the final merge) with a single command, that should > ideally be a single click on the UI or invoking "fj pr merge". > > Thank you for the link to the openjdk bot. It has some interesting ideas > on commands that are possible with an automation like the one we have. > The issues we face though are not purely technical. There are many bots > that do merge trains and batrachomyomachia could do the same thing. The > question is one of trust: is the gcc community happy with a bot doing > merges for them? would they accept automatic rebases? what about rebases > in the presence of signed commits?
Thanks for the detailed explanation! You definitely brought up a few points I hadn’t considered. Regarding that specific concern, though, could we make this an optional feature for people that want it? Ultimately, a committer has to explicitly trigger the bot anyway, so the existing workflow would remain completely unaffected. > This and other issues should be discussed with people and Richard's talk > at the cauldron will be a good opportunity to cover them. > > I'd love to be there but personal reasons might make this hard. I'll > only know later. :( > > Cheers, > Claudio >
