Hi.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 20:31, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> - Use the https url so we don't require everyone to have their gitlab
> accounts ready already. Otherwise we'd need to gate migrating
> maintainer-tools on migrating all the drm kernel repos, and I'd
> really like to partition the mig
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:31:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> - Use the https url so we don't require everyone to have their gitlab
> accounts ready already. Otherwise we'd need to gate migrating
> maintainer-tools on migrating all the drm kernel repos, and I'd
> really like to partition t
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:01 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
>> different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
>> run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forg
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:33:47PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Again this is just to make things look neater on gitlab. For the
> curious, I pushed this series to
>
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/maintainer-tools/tree/master
>
> Long-term we might want o polish this more, especially in ca
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:33:46PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> This way gitlab will automatically spot it and show it when people try
> to do a merge request or file an issue.
>
> Also shrink the title a bit, it looks terrible in the sidebar.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
Reviewed-by: Rod
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:01 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
> different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
> run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forgot to run make check", that
> is, if we adopt a merge request b
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:36:44PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:31:00PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > From: Sean Paul
> >
> > Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
> > drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream an
- Use the https url so we don't require everyone to have their gitlab
accounts ready already. Otherwise we'd need to gate migrating
maintainer-tools on migrating all the drm kernel repos, and I'd
really like to partition the migration. Also, we want to reduce
maintainer-tools committers any
This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forgot to run make check", that
is, if we adopt a merge request based flow.
Even without this this is useful, since if you do a f
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:31:00PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> From: Sean Paul
>
> Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
> drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream and
> adds SoB for the committer.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - s/validate_upstre
This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forgot to run make check", that
is, if we adopt a merge request based flow.
Even without this this is useful, since if you do a f
From: Sean Paul
Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream and
adds SoB for the committer.
Changes in v2:
- s/validate_upstream_branch/validate_upstream_baseline/ (Daniel)
- Use check_conflicts instea
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:24 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
>> different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
>> run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forg
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:24 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
> different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
> run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forgot to run make check", that
> is, if we adopt a merge request b
This gives us neat little CI integration. No more "you have a
different version of shellcheck" - we just pick the one everyone can
run with docker. Also, no more "oops, forgot to run make check", that
is, if we adopt a merge request based flow.
Even without this this is useful, since if you do a f
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:37 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > From: Sean Paul
> >
> > Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
> > drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream and
> > a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> From: Sean Paul
>
> Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
> drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream and
> adds SoB for the committer.
>
> Cc: Boris Brezillon
> Cc: Daniel Ve
Again this is just to make things look neater on gitlab. For the
curious, I pushed this series to
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/maintainer-tools/tree/master
Long-term we might want o polish this more, especially in case we
decide to embrace gitlab merge requests and issues for
maintainer-too
This way gitlab will automatically spot it and show it when people try
to do a merge request or file an issue.
Also shrink the title a bit, it looks terrible in the sidebar.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
---
CONTRIBUTING.rst | 11 +++
dim.rst | 12
index.rst
From: Sean Paul
Since -fixes and -fixes-next (to a lesser extent) are rebasing trees in
drm-misc, add a dim rebase command that sanity checks the upstream and
adds SoB for the committer.
Cc: Boris Brezillon
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
---
dim | 40 +
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43:46AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, "Vivi, Rodrigo" wrote:
> > Apparently I’m the only Goofy maintainer around, and I lost a day to
> > fix the tool flow for 100% of the cases I faced here, so, why just
> > mock it at first sight without considering
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, "Vivi, Rodrigo" wrote:
> Apparently I’m the only Goofy maintainer around, and I lost a day to
> fix the tool flow for 100% of the cases I faced here, so, why just
> mock it at first sight without considering it?!
Hey, no mocking or offense intended, apologies!
Is it not fair
22 matches
Mail list logo