On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >> > > Hi Matt,
> >> > >
> >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> >> >
> >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> >> > this get through?
> >>
> >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> >> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> >> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> >> dim did wrong.
> >
> > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>
> One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
> topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
> happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
> maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
> apply-pull which should also have the checks.
Ah yes if the merge is applied directly instead of using apply-pull then
that's not good. I guess that's why we have the rule that only maintainers
should handle topic branches ...
Not sure how we can fix this in dim? Maybe a check whether the patches
your pushing contain a merge commit, which prompts an additional query
like
"Merge commits should only be done by repo maintainers, not committers.
Confirm that you are a maintainer of $repo?"
It's not the first time this slipped through and caused some fun. Similar
to how we have the confirmation check if you push a lot of patches.
Thoughts?
-Daniel
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> >
> >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> >> > plug that hole?
> >>
> >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
> >
> > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> > baked in.
> > -Daniel
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Daniel
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards, Joonas
> >> > >
> >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Commit
> >> > > >
> >> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/<platform>_revid_tbl/<platform>_revids")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Vetter
> >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Roper
> >> Graphics Software Engineer
> >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> >> Intel Corporation
> >> (916) 356-2795
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
