On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:49:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 06:03:30PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > After receiving a second patchset this week without knowing which tree > > it applies on and trying to apply it on the obvious ones and failing, > > make sure the base tree information which needs to be supplied in the > > 0th message of the patchset is spelled out more explicitly. > > > > Also, make the formulations stronger as this really is a requirement and > > not only a useful thing anymore. > > > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > Yup, I wonder if making "--base=auto" a default in git might be a good > idea too? When the base of a series is in Linus' tree, or in the corresponding subsystem maintainer's tree, things are easy, but there are many situations where the base is a merge of multiple branches (perhaps a for-next and a fixes branch for instance), or where prerequisites have been applied manually for one reason or another. This can and should of course be described in the cover letter, and the submitter should push and provide a link to a branch that contains the series on top of the appropriate base (or just a link to the base). This won't help the bots much though, if they just look at the base tag. Is there a way, or can we standardize on a way, to indicate where the base can be found ? > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
