Re: Proposal: Make cfbot fail on patches not created by "git format-patch"

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Make cfbot fail on patches not created by "git format-patch"
Date: 2025-05-19 15:10:19
Message-ID: CAOYmi+kdvgZTpVne+LeZoyuZ43cYrKvhVeBc=9jhhDfTZjn4Ng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:23 AM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> In my experience people who have been contributing for some time use
> format-patch and provide at least a draft of the commit message,
> because they know it's more convenient both for the reviewers (the
> patch has better chances to be reviewed and tested), and for the
> authors to rebase the patch after a while. Newcomers sometimes submit
> patches that don't even target the `master` branch, and they don't
> know we have cfbot.

While I don't necessarily disagree with these two endpoints, I also
think there are a number of contributors who occupy a spot somewhere
in between -- and there were _many_ people at the unconference session
who were interested in automatically communicating our community norms
in some way. I think that's enough motivation to try something like
Jelte's latest "quality check" proposal.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-05-19 15:19:48 Re: Make wal_receiver_timeout configurable per subscription
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-05-19 15:05:30 Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements