| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
| Date: | 2025-12-02 01:28:20 |
| Message-ID: | 266682.1764638900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:14 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> Evidently this new policy is why my skip scan patch series wasn't
>> being tested by CI.
> It happened again, this time with the index prefetching patch that
> Tomas and I are working on.
> ...
> I thought it was a bug in the CF app, and then complained about it on
> Discord. Then Jelte wasted a couple of hours of his own time on this,
> before he finally noticed that the patch just wasn't in a CF anymore.
> Of course, there was no email about this, no notification -- nothing.
Well, if you check your commitfest dashboard [1] you'll see all
such patches listed under
"Your still open patches in a closed commitfest (you should move or
close these)"
or at least that's what I'm seeing for mine, and I'll go take that
advice momentarily. But I agree that some more-active prodding would
be a good idea. If we send an email nag for your-patch-needs-rebased,
I don't understand why there's not one for your-patch-just-dropped-
off-the-radar-and-you-need-to-fix-that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-12-02 01:51:39 | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-12-02 01:11:04 | Re: missing PG_IO_ALIGN_SIZE uses |