Hi all,
Commit
7e5d83981911 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add sdmmc3 node for STM32MP1 boards")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Stephen,
Thanks for the report. Time to automate this at our end, we've had a
few too many of these slip through all the way to you lately.
Where do you keep your scripts that you catch these things with? Do
you have a writeup of the checks you do? I should add it to my
automation once and for all.
-Olof
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 11:58 AM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 7e5d83981911 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add sdmmc3 node for STM32MP1 boards")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
Hi Olof,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:59:58 -0800 Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the report. Time to automate this at our end, we've had a
> few too many of these slip through all the way to you lately.
>
> Where do you keep your scripts that you catch these things with? Do
> you have a writeup of the checks you do? I should add it to my
> automation once and for all.
I should export my linux-next scripts as a git repo, but I haven't (yet) :-(
Attached pleas find check_commits which I run after fetching each tree
and pass the changed commit range. This, in turn, runs check_fixes
(also attached).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi guys
On 1/13/20 1:38 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:59:58 -0800 Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the report. Time to automate this at our end, we've had a
>> few too many of these slip through all the way to you lately.
>>
>> Where do you keep your scripts that you catch these things with? Do
>> you have a writeup of the checks you do? I should add it to my
>> automation once and for all.
>
> I should export my linux-next scripts as a git repo, but I haven't (yet) :-(
>
> Attached pleas find check_commits which I run after fetching each tree
> and pass the changed commit range. This, in turn, runs check_fixes
> (also attached).
>
Sorry for this oversight. DO I have something to do ? (except to not
forget to check my signed-off next time).
Regards
Alex
Hi Alexandre,
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:17:08 +0100 Alexandre Torgue <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry for this oversight. DO I have something to do ? (except to not
> forget to check my signed-off next time).
That is up to the arm-soc tree maintainers.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:46 AM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:17:08 +0100 Alexandre Torgue <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for this oversight. DO I have something to do ? (except to not
> > forget to check my signed-off next time).
>
> That is up to the arm-soc tree maintainers.
Nothing needed at this time.
The point of making sure maintainers sign off on patches is to track
their path into the tree. In this case we still know it comes in via
you. But make sure you're diligent on this for future patches.
Thanks!
-Olof
On 1/12/20 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:59:58 -0800 Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the report. Time to automate this at our end, we've had a
>> few too many of these slip through all the way to you lately.
>>
>> Where do you keep your scripts that you catch these things with? Do
>> you have a writeup of the checks you do? I should add it to my
>> automation once and for all.
>
> I should export my linux-next scripts as a git repo, but I haven't (yet) :-(
>
> Attached pleas find check_commits which I run after fetching each tree
> and pass the changed commit range. This, in turn, runs check_fixes
> (also attached).
This is definitively very useful, and after being burned by improper
Fixes: tag recently, I ended modifying your check_fixes script and
putting in my list of pre-commit scripts to run with a wrapper around,
although that required making a few modifications:
- add an optional second parameter to let you specify a hook mode which
derives the git tree from the current directory
- added negative return codes upon error
- added a "did you mean" when the SHA1 cannot be found but the subject
was correct
I am not sure what is the intention of the target_subject vs. subject
check as it seems to always fail for me when using a commit that I used
as a test for the script, e.g.:
subject: net: systemport: Simplify queue mapping logic
target_subject: net: systemport: Fixed queue mapping in internal ring map
under what circumstances do you have both subjects match?
Cheers
--
Florian
Hi Stephen,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 4:38 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Olof,
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:59:58 -0800 Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the report. Time to automate this at our end, we've had a
> > few too many of these slip through all the way to you lately.
> >
> > Where do you keep your scripts that you catch these things with? Do
> > you have a writeup of the checks you do? I should add it to my
> > automation once and for all.
>
> I should export my linux-next scripts as a git repo, but I haven't (yet) :-(
>
> Attached pleas find check_commits which I run after fetching each tree
> and pass the changed commit range. This, in turn, runs check_fixes
> (also attached).
Thanks for sharing these. I'll add some slightly edited versions of
these to our soc-scripts repo and reference this thread and you as the
original author.
-Olof