cfbot mistakenly reports that a rebase is needed

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: cfbot mistakenly reports that a rebase is needed
Date: 2025-08-13 12:10:46
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TOWBGHU9F1z1xgboxRBF=Vx4HCMyQ-Jzc3eBLqBFsSFpA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I keep an eye on my patches using cfbog [1] and I think since recently
it started to mistakenly mark patches as "needs rebase" while in fact
everything is OK. If we take [2] for instance, it applies fine:

```
$ git am ~/Desktop/v4-0001-pgindent-improve-formatting-of-multiline-comments.patch
Applying: pgindent: improve formatting of multiline comments
```

There is a log of `git am` on cfbot [3] but I don't see any errors there:

```
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
b227b0bb4e032e19b3679bedac820eba3ac0d1cf ===
/etc/rc.d/jail: WARNING: Per-jail configuration via jail_* variables
is obsolete. Please consider migrating to /etc/jail.conf.
Tue Aug 12 02:21:19 UTC 2025
On branch cf/5831
nothing to commit, working tree clean
=== using 'git am' to apply patch
./v4-0001-pgindent-improve-formatting-of-multiline-comments.patch ===
Applying: pgindent: improve formatting of multiline comments
```

I've seen the same problem with another patch of mine [4]. It also
applied fine but I submitted a rebased version nevertheless. Strangely
enough it made cfbot happy, so I doubt it has anything to do with a
WARNING from FreeBSD Jails.

[1]: https://cfbot.cputube.org/
[2]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5831/
[3]: https://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_5831.log
[4]: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ7c6TNbq%3D%2Bf8YKVE6Mrwf_omfi_BARdsj2tOniS4nRVLyEBKw%40mail.gmail.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-08-13 12:12:28 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2025-08-13 12:08:53 Re: index prefetching