On 7/25/2018 2:56 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
0-day Robot <ro...@bytheb.org> writes:
Bleep bloop. Greetings Tiago Lam, I am a robot and I have tried out your patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
Hi Ian (and all),
Given there are currently two trees (mainline and dpdk_merge), do you
have any preferences, suggestions, or comments on managing the robot
w.r.t. these kind of tree-specific patches? I suspect that we'll have
others in the future, and I'd like to make the robot be a bit friendlier
this way (plus it helps to build confidence when there are fewer
false-positives).
-Aaron
Is it that you'd like to see 0-day running on dpdk_merge also?
From my side I think the revert here was an exception, as the pull
request had not been merged at this point but the assumption was that it
had been. I encourage people to base patches on what is in master, not
dpdk_merge.
It's a valid point however, I'm in favor of keeping the mainline as
clean as possible so typically with a pull request I'll rebase
dpdk_merge to the head of master, then apply dpdk specific patches on
top of that so as to ensure its a clean pull request when applying to
mainline.
If an error does occurs (such as the revert, or a major bug discovery)
I'll typically rework the patches at the head of dpdk_merge to take this
into account. I didnt want to see a comit and a revert going into the
mainline if possible.
I'm happy for 0-day to work on master as is for the moment and
coordinate with a submitter if a patch is needed and how we handle it?
Ian
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
