On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 10:11:29AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > Aaron Conole <acon...@bytheb.org> writes: > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:22:18PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > >>> Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> writes: > >>> > >>> > On 12/19/2018 08:23 AM, Darrell Ball wrote: > >>> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:57 PM 0-day Robot <ro...@bytheb.org> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Bleep bloop. Greetings Darrell Ball, 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. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> checkpatch: > >>> >>> ERROR: Too many signoffs; are you missing Co-authored-by lines? > >>> >>> Lines checked: 37, Warnings: 0, Errors: 1 > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> I don't understand this complaint. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > This is a false positive. I've seen patchwork duplicate signed-off-by's > >>> > in an mbox before (reported to Stephen, > >>> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/219) which would cause > >>> > this error, but downloading this mbox locally it seems ok. > >>> > >>> It's a false positive, but not for that reason. The bot keeps up to date > >>> with the most recent checkpatch, so it stamps a sign-off as part of the > >>> delivery chain. The older branch checkpatch version doesn't understand > >>> that. > >>> > >>> We probably should either backport 3267343a8487 ("checkpatch: Improve > >>> accuracy and specificity of sign-off checking.") to the relevant > >>> branches so that when someone submits a patch on the branch it's > >>> checked, -OR- improve the robot to just save off the latest checkpatch > >>> version before starting to apply patches. I like the idea of the former > >>> so that checkpatch changes can self-check, but it comes with a drawback > >>> (like checkpatch changes won't be invoked until after they're applied to > >>> the tree .. I guess it isn't such a big deal, though). > >> > >> Hmm. I'm inclined to suggest that the robot should always use the > >> latest checkpatch regardless of branch. Otherwise we'll have to > >> make a policy of backporting checkpatch updates, and I'm not really in > >> favor of that. > > > > Makes sense. I'll work on it when I'm back from my PTO. > > So, I'm modifying the bot - just before it switches branches, it will > save off the latest checkpatch. That lets new changes on master be > invoked, and backports will use the latest checkpatch versions. I'll > hook it up today. > > Sound reasonable?
Sure, sounds reasonable to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
