Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tqbww-007hlN-NI for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 17:57:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tqbwv-00Dl7C-9h for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 17:57:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tqbwv-00Dl74-0D for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 17:57:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tqbwt-001XKP-0S for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 17:57:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 527HvP5e1058909; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:57:25 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Jelte Fennema-Nio cc: Andreas Karlsson , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Commitfest app release on Feb 17 with many improvements In-reply-to: References: <703819.1741281033@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1024103.1741365755@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Jelte Fennema-Nio message dated "Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:52:38 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1058907.1741370245.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 12:57:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1058908.1741370245@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jelte Fennema-Nio writes: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 17:42, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, don't you *want* a failure if the patch is already applied? > It's pretty common that in a larger patchset the first 1-2 > small/trivial patches get committed before the rest. Having to then > send an additional email, resubmitting the rest of the patchset > because CFBot fails when re-applying those is kind of silly. This > avoids that. Got it. That is indeed an improvement, though of course it only helps if those patches were applied verbatim. regards, tom lane