On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 2/14/15 7:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com
> > 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?
> >
> >
> > Doing it wouldn't be too hard, as the code right now is simply:
> >
> > # Attempt to identify the file using magic information
> > mtype = mag.buffer(contents)
> > if mtype.startswith('text/x-diff'):
> > a.ispatch = True
> > else:
> > a.ispatch = False
> >
> >
> > (where mag is the API call into the magic module)
> >
> > So we could easily add for example our own regexp parsing or so. The
> > question is do we want to - because we'll have to maintain it as well.
> > But I guess if we have a restricted enough set of rules, we can probably
> > live with that.
>
> As I had described in
> <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54dd2413.8030...@gmx.net>, this is
> all but impossible. The above rule is certainly completely detached
> from the reality of what people actually send in. If you are just
> ignoring patches that don't match your rule set, this is not going to
> work very well.
>
> I think the old system where the patch submitter declared, this message
> contains my patch, is the only one that will work.
>
Would you suggest removing the automated system completely, or keep it
around and just make it possible to override it (either by removing the
note that something is a patch, or by making something that's not listed as
a patch become marked as such)?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
