| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Probable CF bot degradation |
| Date: | 2022-03-20 23:46:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLarXMhoaF71RMuzueh43fW8vBWaAh_0VpLZvUYfLOmng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 1:58 AM Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Would you know how long the expected bitrot re-check period for CF
> > entries that haven't been updated is, or could the bitrot-checking
> > queue be displayed somewhere to indicate the position of a patch in
> > this queue?
Also, as for the show-me-the-queue page, yeah that's a good idea and
quite feasible. I'll look into that in a bit.
> > Additionally, are there plans to validate commits of the main branch
> > before using them as a base for CF entries, so that "bad" commits on
> > master won't impact CFbot results as easy?
>
> How do you see this working?
[Now with more coffee on board] Oh, right, I see, you're probably
thinking that we could look at
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commits/master and take the most
recent passing commit as a base. Hmm, interesting idea.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2022-03-21 00:05:43 | Re: Tab completion for SET TimeZone |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-03-20 23:23:02 | Re: Probable CF bot degradation |