Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Aleksander Alekseev <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>>> === Apply Failed: 29 ===
>>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1235/ (Support arrays over domain
>>> types)
>> Can you clarify what went wrong for you on that one? I went to rebase it,
>> but I end up with the identical patch except for a few line-numbering
>> variations.
> I think "git apply" refuses to apply a patch if it doesn't apply
> exactly. So you could use "git apply -3" (which merges) or just plain
> old "patch" and the patch would work fine.
> If the criteria is that strict, I think we should relax it a bit to
> avoid punting patches for pointless reasons. IOW I think we should at
> least try "git apply -3".
FWIW, I always initially apply patches with good ol' patch(1). So for
me, whether that way works would be the most interesting thing. Don't
know about other committers' workflows.
> Also, at this point this should surely be just an experiment.
+1 ... seems like there's enough noise here that changing patch status
based on the results might be premature. Still, I applaud the effort.
One thing I'm a tad worried about is automatically running trojan-horsed
submissions. I hope the CI bot is tightly sandboxed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
