On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:17:14PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > Introduce stricter rules for topic/core-for-CI management. Way too many > commits have been added over the years, with insufficient rationale > recorded in the commit message, and insufficient follow-up with removing > the commits from the topic branch. > > New rules: > > 1. Require maintainer ack for rebase. Have better gating on when rebases > happen and on which baselines. > > 2. Require maintainer/committer ack for adding/removing commits. No > single individual should decide. > > 3. Require gitlab issues for new commits added. Improve tracking for > removing the commits. > > Also use the stronger "must" for commit message requiring the > justification for the commit being in topic/core-for-CI. > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: dim-tools@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > --- > drm-tip.rst | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drm-tip.rst b/drm-tip.rst > index deae95cdd2fe..24036e2ef576 100644 > --- a/drm-tip.rst > +++ b/drm-tip.rst > @@ -203,11 +203,13 @@ justified exception. The primary goal is to fix issues originating from Linus' > tree. Issues that would need drm-next or other DRM subsystem tree as baseline > should be fixed in the offending DRM subsystem tree. > > -Only rebase the branch if you really know what you're doing. When in doubt, ask > -the maintainers. You'll need to be able to handle any conflicts in non-drm code > -while rebasing. > +Only rebase the branch if you really know what you're doing. You'll need to be > +able to handle any conflicts in non-drm code while rebasing. > > -Simply drop fixes that are already available in the new baseline. > +Always ask for maintainer ack before rebasing. IRC ack is sufficient. > + > +Simply drop fixes that are already available in the new baseline. Close the > +associated gitlab issue when removing commits. > > Force pushing a rebased topic/core-for-CI requires passing the ``--force`` > parameter to git:: > @@ -225,11 +227,22 @@ judgement call. > Only add or remove commits if you really know what you're doing. When in doubt, > ask the maintainers. > > -Apply new commits on top with regular push. The commit message needs to explain > -why the patch has been applied to topic/core-for-CI. If it's a cherry-pick from > +Always ask for maintainer/committer ack before adding/removing commits. IRC ack > +is sufficient. Record the ``Acked-by:`` in commits being added. > + > +Apply new commits on top with regular push. The commit message must explain why > +the patch has been applied to topic/core-for-CI. If it's a cherry-pick from > another subsystem, please reference the commit with ``git cherry-pick -x`` > option. If it's a patch from another subsystem, please reference the patch on > the mailing list with ``Link:`` tag. > > +New commits always need an associated gitlab issue for tracking purposes. The > +goal is to have as few commits in topic/core-for-CI as possible, and we need to > +be able to track the progress in making that happen. Reference the issue with > +``References:`` tag. Add the ``core-for-CI`` label to the issue. (Note: Do not > +use ``Closes:`` because the logic here is backwards; the issue is having the > +commit in the branch in the first place.) > + > Instead of applying reverts, just remove the commit. This implies ``git rebase > --i`` on the current baseline; see directions above. > +-i`` on the current baseline; see directions above. Close the associated gitlab > +issue when removing commits. > -- > 2.34.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
