On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:23:48PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 7/15/22 16:15, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:17:49PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> Also, I would like to see us fold cfbot output into the official CF, > >> rather than do the opposite. > > > > That's been the plan for years :) > > Is there something other than lack of round tuits that's blocking > progress? I'm happy to donate more time in this area, but I don't know > if my first patch proposal was helpful (or even on the right list -- > pgsql-www, right?).
cfbot is Thomas's project, so moving it run on postgres vm was one step, but I imagine the "integration with cfapp" requires coordination with Magnus. What patch ? > > Similarly, patches could be summarily set to "waiting on author" if they > > didn't > > recently apply, compile, and pass tests. That's the minimum standard. > > However, I think it's better not to do this immediately after the patch > > stops > > applying/compiling/failing tests, since it's usually easy enough to review > > it. > > It's hard to argue with that, but without automation, this is plenty of > busy work too. I don't think that's busywork, since it's understood to require human judgement, like 1) to deal with false-positive test failures, and 2) check if there's actually anything left for the author to do; 3) check if it passed tests recently; 4) evaluate existing opinions in the thread and make a judgement call. > > I didn't know until recently that when a CF entry is closed, that it's > > possible > > (I think) for the author themselves to reopen it and "move it to the next > > CF". > > I suggest to point this out to people; I suppose I'm not the only one who > > finds > > it offputting when a patch is closed in batch at the end of the month after > > getting only insignificant review. > > I think this may have been the goal but I don't think it actually works > in practice. The app refuses to let you carry a RwF patch to a new CF. I was able to do what Peter said. I don't know why the cfapp has that restriction, it seems like an artificial constraint. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8498f959-e7a5-b0ec-7761-26984e581a51%40enterprisedb.com https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2888/ -- Justin
