On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 9:14 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I'd also say that breaking CI and BF is probably something I'd consider more > urgent, as that could indicate the commit was just generally less well tested.
This is possible, but I think we oversell it by quite a lot. It's quite possible for someone to put hundreds of hours into a patch and forget to check CI before pushing; and it's also quite possible for someone to do a terrible job vetting a patch where CI is clean. When somebody is already stressed out about their patch breaking the buildfarm, the very last thing they need is somebody who hasn't read the patch or understood what the problems are to show up and say "hey, maybe this patch should be reverted for all time and never considered again ever!". It's just making a very stressful situation more stressful. And it's cheap. If somebody shows up and says "hey, this was improvidently committed for the following six design-level reasons," that is abundantly fair and deserves major respect. Such reviews take real time, thought, and work. Idly speculating that someone's failure to check CI is a sign that they've also done everything else wrong takes almost no work at all. I hate that we do that to people. As much as I hate it when it happens to me, I think I hate it even more when it happens to other people. It's a terrible way to treat people who have poured their heart and soul into becoming committers and who really care about the project, at least until we beat the caring out of them. But the real point of my previous email is that I just do not think it's reasonable to expect people to fix complex programming problems within hours. As much as I can be grumpy about CI, anything that goes wrong with CI should in theory be something you can avoid ever having to deal with on a Friday night no matter when you choose to commit, because you can test things in advance. I know the BF has more configurations than CI, but instead of having LESS capability to test things in advance, it has NONE. Twenty years ago, post-commit testing was probably the best you could hope for, but today it isn't. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
