[PATCH] dim: extend check_maintainer to all drm-intel branches

[Vivi, Rodrigo]

On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 11:01 -0700, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2022 10:48 AM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:50:19AM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
> > wrote:
> > > The check_maintainer warns the user if any of the patches being
> > > applied
> > > touches files outside of the ones that are owned by the branch
> > > that the
> > > patches are being applied to.
> > > The only branch currently covered by the checks is drm-intel-
> > > next, but
> > > checking for i915 paths is good practice for all intel branches,
> > > so
> > > extend the check to cover them all.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
> > > <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   dim | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/dim b/dim
> > > index 4b43bf8..1256798 100755
> > > --- a/dim
> > > +++ b/dim
> > > @@ -1701,7 +1701,7 @@ function check_maintainer
> > >         branch=$1
> > >         commit=$2
> > >   
> > > -        if [ "$branch" = "drm-intel-next" ]; then
> > > +        if [[ "$branch" = "drm-intel-"* ]]; then
> > we probably need to 'or' with drm-intel-gt-next... no one except
> > maintainers
> > should be pushing to any other drm-intel-* branch other than these
> > 2.
> 
> I wanted to be future-proof here, in case we ever add another dev
> branch 
> in the future. This only prints a warning, so even if the warning
> comes 
> out on one of the maintainers-only branches it's not going to hurt.
> But 
> if you still think it is better to limit to just drm-intel-next and 
> drm-intel-gt-next then I can do that.

Well, I really hope that we don't end up creating yet another branch.
2 is already hard enough to keep in sync ;)

But thinking more about this, I believe that it doesn't hurt to have
this in the fixes branches as well. Besides I don't believe that we
should get into this case anyway. So, your approach looks good to me.

> 
> > and if we don't have this check in place already it is probably
> > worth to
> > add an extra check for the fixes branch?!
> 
> I'm not sure I understood this comment correctly. Above you're saying
> to 
> limit to only intel-next and gt-next, while here you're saying we
> should 
> add the fixes branch as well. If fixes is included as well, which
> branch 
> do you want to exclude by explicitly checking for intel-next, gt-next
> and -fixes instead of just drm-intel-* ? Or are you meaning to have a
> different check for the fixes branch?

oh, nevermind. please ignore this part. When I was writing I though
about another msg...

Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>


> 
> Daniele
> 
> > 
> > >                 if non_i915_files=$(git diff-tree --no-commit-id
> > > --name-only -r $commit | \
> > >                         grep -v
> > > "^\(drivers/gpu/drm/i915/\|include/drm/i915\|include/uapi/drm/i91
> > > 5\|Documentation/gpu/i915\)") && [[ -n "$non_i915_files" ]]; then
> > >                         echo -e "The following files are outside
> > > of i915 maintenance scope:\n"
> > > -- 
> > > 2.37.3
> > > 
>