On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Marco Nenciarini > <marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: >> >> Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: >> > >> > Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the >> > attachment itself. I've also run a job to populate all old threads. >> > >> >> I wonder what is the algorithm to detect when an attachment is a patch. >> >> If you look at https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/94/ all the >> attachments are marked as "Patch: no", but many of them are >> clearly a patch. > > It uses the "magic" module, same as the "file" command. And that one claims: > > mha@mha-laptop:/tmp$ file 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v9.patch > 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v9.patch: ASCII English text, with very > long lines > > I think it doesn't consider it a patch because it's not actually a patch - > it looks like a git-format actual email message that *contains* a patch. It > even includes the unix From separator line. So if anything it should have > detected that it's an email message, which it apparently doesn't. > > Picking from the very top patch on the cf, an actual patch looks like this: > > mha@mha-laptop:/tmp$ file psql_fix_uri_service_004.patch > psql_fix_uri_service_004.patch: unified diff output, ASCII text, with very > long lines
Can we make it smarter, so that the kinds of things people produce intending for them to be patches are thought by the CF app to be patches? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
