At Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:13:08 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqTx=xq9xmqcgf9xemq_pvew99n6wjwdhi8ar3nnexy...@mail.gmail.com> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > >> On 12 Sep 2017, at 23:54, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >> With all due respect, it's hard not to see this as a disruption of the > >> current CF. I agree automating the patch processing is a worthwhile > >> goal, but we're not there yet and it seems somewhat premature. > >> > >> Let me explain why I think so: > >> > >> (1) You just changed the status of 10-15% open patches. I'd expect > >> things like this to be consulted with the CF manager, yet I don't see > >> any comments from Daniel. Considering he's been at the Oslo PUG meetup > >> today, I doubt he was watching hackers very closely. > > > > Correct, I’ve been travelling and running a meetup today so had missed this > > on > > -hackers. > > FWIW, I tend to think that the status of a patch ought to be changed > by either a direct lookup at the patch itself or the author depending > on how the discussion goes on, not an automatic processing. Or at > least have more delay to allow people to object as some patches can be > applied, but do not apply automatically because of naming issues. > There are as well people sending test patches to allow Postgres to > fail on purpose, for example see the replication slot issue not able > to retain a past segment because the beginning of a record was not > tracked correctly on the receiver-side. This can make the recovery > tests fail, but we want them to fail to reproduce easily the wanted > failure.
Agreed. I'd like to have a means to exclude a part of patches from the CI check. As another issue I can guess is that we sometimes fix the commit on which a patch(set) applies for a while especially for big patches, which gets many stubs continuously by new commits. > >> (2) You gave everyone about 4 hours to object, ending 3PM UTC, which > >> excludes about one whole hemisphere where it's either too early or too > >> late for people to respond. I'd say waiting for >24 hours would be more > >> appropriate. > > > > Agreed. > > Definitely. Any batch updates have to involve the CFM authorization at > least, in this case Daniel. +9(JST) regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
