On 07/03/2025 00:33, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 05:30:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 04/03/2025 17:03, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 10:53:53AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 04/03/2025 07:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> --- >>>>>> base-commit: 0067a4b21c9ab441bbe6bf3635b3ddd21f6ca7c3 >>>>> >>>>> My git repo doesn't know that commit. Given that you said your patch >>>>> bases on that other series, this isn't surprising. Please use a publicly >>>>> available commit as base parameter, otherwise you (and I) don't benefit >>>>> from the armada of build bots because they just silently fail to test in >>>> >>>> As you can easily see in the signature, this patchset was generated by >>>> b4 and such tag was added automatically. No point in stripping it even >>>> if it is not useful (life, happens). >>> >>> My request was not about stripping it, but making it useful. I don't >>> know the b4 patch sending side, but git send-email has the capability to >>> make it more useful in this scenario. I didn't check, but >>> `b4 --edit-deps` which Abel mentioned sounds about right. >>> >>> The relevant documentation for the git side is the paragraph "BASE TREE >>> INFORMATION" in git-format-patch(1). >> >> Useful how? The dependency is on the lists, so there is no base-commit >> you would know. > > Have you tried to understand the part of the manpage I pointed out? It > seems to me "base-commit" has different semantics for us and only mine > is aligned to git's (and consequently b4's) meaning. > The correct base commit would have been > cd3215bbcb9d4321def93fea6cfad4d5b42b9d1d. > >> And regardless of edit-deps, that base-commit tag is standard from b4, >> so what do you expect from all submitters even if this was not RFC? > > I don't understand this question. I expect from submitters to pick a > publicly known commit as base no matter if the series is an RFC or who's > standard this is. > >> Always base on known commit? > > Yes please. The manpage isn't explicit about that but the above > referenced commit has: > > The base tree info consists of the "base commit", which is a well-known > commit that is part of the stable part of the project history everybody > else works off of, and zero or more "prerequisite patches", which are > well-known patches in flight that is not yet part of the "base commit" > that need to be applied on top of "base commit" in topological order > before the patches can be applied. > >> But for most of the cases this is >> irrelevant. I can have intermediate commit between linux-next tip and my >> patch, thus base-commit will be bogus for you, but it does not matter >> for the patch - it's based on linux-next. > > I agree, linux-next is the base. So the respective tip of linux-next is > the right thing to pass to git format-patch --base (independent of if > it's called directly or through b4). Ideally you also drop the > irrelevant intermediate patches to make the build bots test exactly the > changes you suggest with your series. I would expect that this is the > tree you actually tested, so it shouldn't be a big hurdle. > > So summarizing we have: Iff you use --base with a non-public commit, it's Which is easily visible that it was not the case here. No human used format-patch thus no human used --base. > useless and irrelevant. I fully agree. Our conclusion is different > though. You accept it's useless (and even request from me that I do the > same), and I asked the submitter to use --base as intended to make the > resulting information usable. Because you expect additional steps for users of b4 and pointing in review standard use of b4 is extremely nitpicking. Best regards, Krzysztof
