Hi all,
Commit
db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/<platform>_revid_tbl/<platform>_revids")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
Hi Matt,
Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
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
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? Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to plug that hole?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
+ Dave as FYI
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2021-08-10 09:27:25)
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.
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
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch 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.
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch 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
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch 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.
I sent an untested patch to this effect. It's a start. I guess there could be more detailed automated checks, but frankly dim is getting pretty complicated for a bash script. Or because it's a bash script.
BR, Jani.
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:48:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch 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 ...
Hmm, I wasn't aware of this rule. I double checked with Rodrigo before doing so and he thought merging a branch directly to intel-next and gt-next with the foundational definitions and tables should be an okay approach here (and he did an extra backmerge in preparation to make sure it went smoothly).
Anyway, definitely my fault; I'll keep this in mind for the future.
Matt
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch 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.
My bad. I have asked Matt to go ahead with the topic branch. So it is an ack, which didn't get recorded. But I didn't expect this case of missing dim checks with this flow.
Sorry, Rodrigo.
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
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
Jani Nikula -
Joonas Lahtinen -
Matt Roper -
Rodrigo Vivi -
Stephen Rothwell