On 4/2/19 12:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 04:45:16AM +0000, Jon Mason wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:41 AM Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: >>> On 4/1/19 6:20 PM, akuster808 wrote: >>>> >>>> On 4/1/19 4:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 15:33 -0700, akuster808 wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have noticed a large number of git commits with no header >>>>>> information being accepted. >>>>> Can you be more specific about what "no header information" means? You >>>>> mean a shortlog and no full log message? >>>> Commits with just a "subject" and signoff. No additional information >>> If you can convey the reason for the change in just the subject, that is >>> acceptable.. but there is -always- supposed to be a signed-off-by line >>> according >>> to our guidelines. >>> >>> So if you see this, I think we need to step back and figure out where and >>> why >>> it's happening and get it resolved in the future. >>> >>> (Places I've seen in the past were one-off mistakes and clearly that -- so >>> it >>> wasn't anything that we needed to work on a correction.) >>> >>> --Mark >>> >>>> We tend to reference back to how the kernel does things. >>>> >>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html >>>> These two sections in particular. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Describe your changes >>>> >>>> Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or 5000 >>>> lines of >>>> a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that motivated you to >>>> do this >>>> work. Convince the reviewer that there is a problem worth fixing and that >>>> it >>>> makes sense for them to read past the first paragraph. >>>> >>>> >>>> along with this section. >>>> >>>> >>>> 14) The canonical patch format >>>> >>>> This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note >>>> that, if >>>> you have your patches stored in a |git| repository, proper patch >>>> formatting can >>>> be had with |git format-patch|. The tools cannot create the necessary text, >>>> though, so read the instructions below anyway. >>>> >>>> The canonical patch subject line is: >>>> >>>> Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase >>>> >>>> The canonical patch message body contains the following: >>>> >>>> * A |from| line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty >>>> line >>>> (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author). >>>> * The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which >>>> will be >>>> copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. >>>> * An empty line. >>>> * The |Signed-off-by:| lines, described above, which will also go in >>>> the >>>> changelog. >>>> * A marker line containing simply |---|. >>>> * Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. >>>> * The actual patch (|diff| output). >>>> >>>> >>>> - Armin >> There are existing git hooks that can be used to detect and fail to >> merge patches like this. For Linux, I have the following in >> .git/hooks/pre-commit >> #!/bin/sh >> exec git diff --cached | scripts/checkpatch.pl - > FWIW, over in U-Boot land I do: > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -q --git origin/master.. > as part of checking things prior to pushing to master. Having hooks is fine but after the fact. It puts the burden back on the Layer maintainer to resolve. If we think more info is better, it needs to happen at time of change submittal.
- armin > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
