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 > > > <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > 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 [[ "$branch" = "drm-intel-"* ]]; then > > we probably need to 'or' with drm-intel-gt-next... no one except > > maintainers > > should be pushing to any other drm-intel-* branch other than these > > 2. > > I wanted to be future-proof here, in case we ever add another dev > branch > in the future. This only prints a warning, so even if the warning > comes > out on one of the maintainers-only branches it's not going to hurt. > But > if you still think it is better to limit to just drm-intel-next and > drm-intel-gt-next then I can do that.
Well, I really hope that we don't end up creating yet another branch. 2 is already hard enough to keep in sync ;) But thinking more about this, I believe that it doesn't hurt to have this in the fixes branches as well. Besides I don't believe that we should get into this case anyway. So, your approach looks good to me. > > > and if we don't have this check in place already it is probably > > worth to > > add an extra check for the fixes branch?! > > I'm not sure I understood this comment correctly. Above you're saying > to > limit to only intel-next and gt-next, while here you're saying we > should > add the fixes branch as well. If fixes is included as well, which > branch > do you want to exclude by explicitly checking for intel-next, gt-next > and -fixes instead of just drm-intel-* ? Or are you meaning to have a > different check for the fixes branch? oh, nevermind. please ignore this part. When I was writing I though about another msg... Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> > > Daniele > > > > > > if non_i915_files=$(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 > > > >
