On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:51:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> >> I have a mixed feeling about this one, primarily because this was > >> >> already tried quite early in the life of "format-patch" command. > >> >> > >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/9694/focus=9757 > >> >> > >> >> Only the name is different (it was called "applies-to" and named a > >> >> tree object). > >> > > >> > Either commit or tree object will work for us. We can use it in > >> > v2 if you prefer tree object. > >> > >> Sorry, I think you misunderstood. By "only the name is different", I > >> didn't mean to say that the tree object name should be shown as the > >> old proposal did. What I meant but didn't explicitly say, as I > >> thought it was sufficient to point at an old discussion thread, was > >> that this was already tried and rejected. This round uses different > >> name but does essentially the same thing as the old proposal, and I > >> do not think I heard anything new that supports this patch against > >> earlier rejection by Linus. That is what gave me a mixed feeling. > > > > I can understand the rejection by Linus in development process POV. > > > > However we are facing a new situation: in test robot POV, IMHO there > > are values to test exactly the same tree as the patch submitter. > > Otherwise the robot risks > > > > - false negative: failing to apply and test some patches > > - false positive: sending wrong bug reports due to guessed wrong base tree > > I always get negatives and positives confused, so let me think aloud > with an example. Let's say that somebody worked on adding a new > feature based on v4.2 codebase and sent in a patch series. The > series touched files in quiescent part of the system, these files > are identical between v4.2 and the current codebase at v4.5-rc5, and > the series applies cleanly to a "wrong" base tree at the tip of > 'master'. But it turns out that the series uses an old API that was > removed in the meantime. The test robot may say "the result of > applying the series does not even build" and the developer would > complain to you saying "You tested with a wrong version". > > I've already said that I can see the value this approach has for > you. By having the developer state which commit the series was > based on, it will shield you from such a complaint, because you > would not use closer-to-tip 'master' as the base, but instead use > v4.2 codebase for the test. > > As I said, what is unclear to me is what value this apporach gives > to the project. Problem arises when a developer based his work on a maintainer's topic branch. The robot doesn't know that and tests the patch on v4.5-rc5, which may trigger a false error because the patch depends on some changes in that maintainer's topic branch. In that case, the error report will be pure noise. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html