Andres Freund writes:
> Why does this need to be a separate task, instead of being folded into the
> CompilerWarnings task or such? Increasing the peak numbers of CPUs cfbot needs
> is unfortunately somewhat annoying, as I've been fighting w/ GCP to increase
> the quotas much higher than what they
Hi,
On 2025-10-21 14:19:29 +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> +# Check that code follows formatting standards
> +task:
> + name: FormattingCheck
Why does this need to be a separate task, instead of being folded into the
CompilerWarnings task or such? Increasing the peak numbers of CPUs cfbot need
> On 23 Oct 2025, at 17:58, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> My thought is to use the new tags feature to add/remove a "Needs Formatting"
> tag as the indicator.
That's also an option, though I would avoid calling it "Needs" to again avoid
making in actionable instead of informative.
--
Daniel Gu
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 11:14 Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:07 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > I like the different shape and symbol, but I would probably keep it
> green to
> > indicate that it's informational rather than actionable. We don't want a
> > flurry of patch re-su
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:07 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I like the different shape and symbol, but I would probably keep it green to
> indicate that it's informational rather than actionable. We don't want a
> flurry of patch re-submissions with only whitespace changes eating CI
> resources
>
> On 23 Oct 2025, at 11:40, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 14:06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I like the different shape and symbol, but I would probably keep it green to
>> indicate that it's informational rather than actionable. We don't want a
>> flurry of patch re-submi
On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 14:06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I like the different shape and symbol, but I would probably keep it green to
> indicate that it's informational rather than actionable. We don't want a
> flurry of patch re-submissions with only whitespace changes eating CI
> resources
> w
> On 22 Oct 2025, at 11:24, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 10:49, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Orange cross and Red cross are probably too similar to be easily discernible
>> for people with color blindness. Since the patch is technically "green",
>> what
>> do you think ab
On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 10:49, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Orange cross and Red cross are probably too similar to be easily discernible
> for people with color blindness. Since the patch is technically "green", what
> do you think about just changing the checkmark on such patches?
Good point. I ch
> On 22 Oct 2025, at 10:41, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I updated the commitfest
> app to now show it with an orange cross instead of a red one (see
> attached png).
Orange cross and Red cross are probably too similar to be easily discernible
for people with color blindness. Since the patch is t
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 16:49, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> By having it be a separate job I can easily make the
> cfbot and commitfest app report it as "yellow" instead of "red" if
> this job fails.
I set "allow_failures: true" in the cirrus task, so that a formatting
failure won't show the whole b
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Indeed there is, I admittedly was under the impression that koel ran
> pgperltidy
> but clearly I was wrong.
The original thread about forcing a stronger indentation policy was
that we could begin with the C code, leaving everyt
On 21.10.25 14:19, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
At PGConf.dev 2025 one thing that came up in the "Scaling PostgreSQL
Development" unconference session is that new hackers don't know all the
details of our development flow by heart yet. Of course it's documented
on the wiki, but even if they find the
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 16:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think there is plenty of room for workflows where the committer
>> is expected to reindent just before commit.
> Interesting, but yeah that makes sense.
Also, it's far from un-heard-of to actually make two separat
> On 21 Oct 2025, at 16:31, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2025, at 15:22, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think that this task should format perl files as well?
>>
>> +1, if we do this we should run pgperltidy as w
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 16:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > Conforming to indentation rules in v1 of a patchset isn't the most
> > interesting
> > aspect of a submission, especially for WIP and POC style patches.
>
> I have a more concrete argument: sometimes, it's helpful to
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> Conforming to indentation rules in v1 of a patchset isn't the most interesting
> aspect of a submission, especially for WIP and POC style patches.
I have a more concrete argument: sometimes, it's helpful to submit
an un-pgindent'd patch because correct indentation will
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 15:22, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> What do you think about moving this inside of another CI task instead
> of creating a new one? I think that creating a new VM and cloning
> Postgres into it would be unnecessary but I could not decide which
> task would be a good choice for
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 21 Oct 2025, at 15:22, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> > Do you think that this task should format perl files as well?
>
> +1, if we do this we should run pgperltidy as well.
I definitely agree that we should run that too. But currentl
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 16:46, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 21 Oct 2025, at 15:39, Florents Tselai wrote:
> >
> > That wouldn’t preclude having a CI task as well, of course.
> > The hook would mainly help contributors catch formatting issues locally,
> > while the CI task would serve as
> On 21 Oct 2025, at 15:39, Florents Tselai wrote:
>
>> On 21 Oct 2025, at 3:19 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>>
>> At PGConf.dev 2025 one thing that came up in the "Scaling PostgreSQL
>> Development" unconference session is that new hackers don't know all the
>> details of our development flow
> On 21 Oct 2025, at 3:19 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> At PGConf.dev 2025 one thing that came up in the "Scaling PostgreSQL
> Development" unconference session is that new hackers don't know all the
> details of our development flow by heart yet. Of course it's documented
> on the wiki, bu
> On 21 Oct 2025, at 15:22, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Do you think that this task should format perl files as well?
+1, if we do this we should run pgperltidy as well.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 15:19, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> At PGConf.dev 2025 one thing that came up in the "Scaling PostgreSQL
> Development" unconference session is that new hackers don't know all the
> details of our development flow by heart yet. Of course it's documented
> on the wiki, b
24 matches
Mail list logo
