Re: New year, new commitfest app improvements

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New year, new commitfest app improvements
Date: 2026-01-14 02:55:08
Message-ID: A39099A5-E88A-4C2A-9F90-BBFCC16E3156@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Jan 14, 2026, at 10:51, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Suppose a patch has already created a CF entry, and a reviewer wants to suggest a code change and attaches a diff file in the thread. In that case, CI will automatically pick up the diff and run tests, which will very likely result in a CI failure. I’ve run into this situation myself; see [1].
>
> Would it make sense for CI to only pick up .patch files and ignore .diff files? Or provide some way else to indicate CI to ignore certain emails?
>
> Other ways exist:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cfbot
>
> Note the section on “what is considered a patch”.
>
> There is definitely room for improved discoverability here though.
>
> David J.
>

Good to learn. Using a “nocfbot” prefix should perfectly work.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2026-01-14 02:51:48 Re: New year, new commitfest app improvements