Hi Alex, Thanks for the clarification.
I understand now that the behavior should remain a hard failure in oe-core, and that the earlier interpretation was incorrect. I'll drop the patch that downgrades the check to a warning. Thanks for pointing out the existing commit in oe-core as well that helps clear up the confusion. Regards, Aditya On Sat, Jun 13, 2026, 6:41 PM Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 at 18:05, Aditya GS via lists.openembedded.org > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [YOCTO #15940] > > > > Detect cases where Upstream-Status is placed after the patch > > scissors ("---") and emit a warning instead of failing. > > > > Such placement may be intentional in some workflows to avoid > > including the tag in upstream commits. > > I'm afraid there has been a confusion here, and the patch is not correct. > > The bug was already addressed in oe-core earlier: > > commit 2156ef9e6defa3ec9087789fcea25fb4fee7b83c > Author: Luka Krstic <[email protected]> > Date: Thu Dec 18 10:11:38 2025 +0100 > > patchtest: reject Upstream-Status after scissors > > but the bugzilla ticket was never closed. > > Then https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15940#c1 was > interpreted as a request to downgrade it to a warning, but we should > not be doing that: it means patchtest will not longer actually notify > of the issue on the oe-core mailing list. > > I understand some other layers intentionally put it after the > scissors; if they're using patchtest, they can disable this particular > test or configure it to produce some kind of soft fail, but in oe-core > it should remain a hard fail. > > Alex >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#238854): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/238854 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119759400/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
