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