Dear Matt, As - the contributor agreed to sign the CLA and - there was a mark that CLA is signed and - all the necessary approves were present I decided that there is no problem to merge.
BTW, I am not sure the PR was trivial enough. Anyway, the responsibility was mine, not the git one :) On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 PM Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> wrote: > I notice that PR 10594 (Add support for otherName:NAIRealm in output) > got merged yesterday: > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/10594 > > The commit description contained "CLA: trivial" and so the "hold: cla > required" label was not automatically applied to the PR. But the > discussion in the PR suggested a CLA should be submitted. But it got > merged anyway! Fortunately the CLA had already been processed - just not > noted in the PR. So, in this case, it makes no difference. > > I think this points to a possible flaw in our workflow for dealing with > trivial changes. Because the "CLA: trivial" header suppresses the "hold: > cla required" label and the git hooks don't complain when commits get > pushed with the "CLA: trivial" header and no CLA on file, it seems > possible to me that we could push commit all the way through the process > without the reviewers even realising that the author is claiming > triviality on the commit. > > Not sure what the solution to that is. > > Matt > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky