On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
> > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > needs the changes.
> >
> > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> Thanks again! :-)
In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
ask us :)
Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
use it?
Maxime
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
> > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > > needs the changes.
> > >
> > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> > Thanks again! :-)
>
> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>
> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
> ask us :)
>
> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
> use it?
Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
very clear warning if you bypass it).
If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
fix.
Also backmerges (and in generally anything that is about cross-tree patch
wrangling, like cherry-picking) are maintainer duties in drm-misc and not
for committers:
https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/maintainer-drm-misc.html#maintainer-s-duties
I think it'd be really good for Luben to go through the docs and supply a
patch to clarify this, if it's not clear from the existing docs.
We have some wording in the committer docs, but maybe it's not clear
enough:
https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer-drm-misc.html#merge-criteria
"Any non-linear actions (backmerges, merging topic branches and sending
out pull requests) are only done by the official drm-misc maintainers (see
MAINTAINERS, or ask #dri-devel), and not by committers. See the examples
section in dim for more info"
Minor screw-ups like this gives us a great opportunity to improve the
tooling&docs, let's use it.
Cheers, Sima
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Hi Luben,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
> > > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > > > needs the changes.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> > > Thanks again! :-)
> >
> > In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
> > drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
> >
> > We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
> > ask us :)
> >
> > Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
> > use it?
>
> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>
> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
> fix.
It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
again
Maxime
On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Luben,
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>
>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>
>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>> ask us :)
>>>
>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>> use it?
>>
>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>
>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>> fix.
>
> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
> again
>
> Maxime
There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.
--
Regards,
Luben
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> Hi Luben,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
>>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>>
>>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>>> ask us :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>>> use it?
>>>
>>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>>
>>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>>> fix.
>>
>> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
>> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
>> again
>>
>> Maxime
>
> There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.
Wait what?
What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim?
If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed
branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with
following all the other maintainer tools documentation.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
On 2023-11-24 08:20, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi Luben,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much
>>>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>>>> ask us :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>>>> use it?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>>>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>>>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>>>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>>>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>>>
>>>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>>>> fix.
>>>
>>> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
>>> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
>>> again
>>>
>>> Maxime
>>
>> There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.
>
> Wait what?
>
> What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim?
>
> If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed
> branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with
> following all the other maintainer tools documentation.
Hi Jani,
I only use dim, ever.
--
Regards,
Luben