On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:04:12PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We want explicit backmerges when a pull request pulls in random other
> stuff. Motivated by a few recent examples.
>
> Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com>
> Cc: Dave Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
> ---
> dim | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/dim b/dim
> index 06188fea94c6..016cd4381f38 100755
> --- a/dim
> +++ b/dim
> @@ -1048,6 +1048,23 @@ function apply_patch #patch_file
> return $rv
> }
>
> +function check_merge_baseline
> +{
> + local pull_sha1 baseline_sha1 upstream_sha1
> + pull_sha1=$1
> + baseline_sha1=$2
> + upstream_sha1=$3
> +
> + # the merge base between the pull and upstream is supposed to be in our
> + # tree already
> + if ! git merge-base --is-ancestor $(git merge-base $pull_sha1
> $upstream_sha1) $baseline_sha1 ; then
> + echoerr "Pull request contains commits from $upstream_sha1"
> + echoerr "Please backmerge first"
> +
> + warn_of_fail "Issues in pull request detected"Wouldn't that be warn_or_fail instead? Once fixed, Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dim-tools mailing list dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
