[Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> >> > > Hi Matt,
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
>> >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
>> >> > 
>> >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
>> >> > this get through?
>> >> 
>> >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
>> >> lost my s-o-b on this one.  Maybe when I edited the commit message after
>> >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
>> >> the extract-tags marker?  It's the only patch where the line is missing,
>> >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
>> >> dim did wrong.
>> >
>> > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
>> > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
>> > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
>> > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
>> > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>> 
>> One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
>> topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
>> happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
>> maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
>> apply-pull which should also have the checks.
>
> Ah yes if the merge is applied directly instead of using apply-pull then
> that's not good. I guess that's why we have the rule that only maintainers
> should handle topic branches ...
>
> Not sure how we can fix this in dim? Maybe a check whether the patches
> your pushing contain a merge commit, which prompts an additional query
> like
>
> "Merge commits should only be done by repo maintainers, not committers.
> Confirm that you are a maintainer of $repo?"
>
> It's not the first time this slipped through and caused some fun. Similar
> to how we have the confirmation check if you push a lot of patches.

I sent an untested patch to this effect. It's a start. I guess there
could be more detailed automated checks, but frankly dim is getting
pretty complicated for a bash script. Or because it's a bash script.

BR,
Jani.


>
> Thoughts?
> -Daniel
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> >
>> >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
>> >> > plug that hole?
>> >> 
>> >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here?  The i915 patch has already
>> >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
>> >
>> > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
>> > baked in.
>> > -Daniel
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Matt
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Thanks, Daniel
>> >> > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Regards, Joonas
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
>> >> > > > Hi all,
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > Commit
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > >   db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/<platform>_revid_tbl/<platform>_revids")
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > -- 
>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
>> >> > 
>> >> > -- 
>> >> > Daniel Vetter
>> >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>> >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Matt Roper
>> >> Graphics Software Engineer
>> >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
>> >> Intel Corporation
>> >> (916) 356-2795
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center