On Thursday, May 29, 2025, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 1:45 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 12:24, Jacob Champion
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> > > That outcome seems entirely horrible to me. If you want to
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 1:45 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 12:24, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > That outcome seems entirely horrible to me. If you want to flag the
> lack
> > > of a commit message somehow, fine, bu
> On 19 May 2025, at 6:10 PM, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:23 AM Aleksander Alekseev
> 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 co
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:23 AM Aleksander Alekseev
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
Hi,
> > Is this really lowering the bar for new contributors? I've always held "be
> > liberal in what you accept" as a gold standard for projects I'm involved
> > in, to
> > remove barriers to entry. Good commit messages are obviously very
> > important,
> > but having your patch rejected (ye
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> Okay, reasonable feedback. How about we add a CI job that does a
> "quality check". That's much less strong, as all the other tests will
> still run, but people would get a failing CI job which tells them that
> something is wrong. We could also include a pgindent in th
On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 12:05, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 16 May 2025, at 11:52, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have strong opposition to this? To be clear, it means we don't
> > run CI on patches created by piping "git diff" to a file anymore, as a way
> > to nudge submitter
On Fri, 16 May 2025 at 12:24, Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > That outcome seems entirely horrible to me. If you want to flag the lack
> > of a commit message somehow, fine, but don't prevent CI from running.
>
> Personally I also prefer nudges to g
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> That outcome seems entirely horrible to me. If you want to flag the lack
> of a commit message somehow, fine, but don't prevent CI from running.
Personally I also prefer nudges to gates. Just like people already
deprioritize "Waiting on Author"
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> Based on the discussion there I'm planning to make the cfbot fail to apply
> a patch in the following two cases:
> ...
> To be clear, it means we don't
> run CI on patches created by piping "git diff" to a file anymore, as a way
> to nudge submitters into providing use
> On 16 May 2025, at 11:52, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> Does anyone have strong opposition to this? To be clear, it means we don't
> run CI on patches created by piping "git diff" to a file anymore, as a way
> to nudge submitters into providing useful commit messages.
Disclaimer: I wasn't in t
In the "Scaling PostgreSQL Development" unconference session. One of the
problems that came up was that people don't follow "best practices". The
response to that was that people don't know what the best practices are
(nor that they are important to follow), because we don't enforce them.
Based on
12 matches
Mail list logo
