Hi Alex, On Thursday, 4 May 2017 9:33:02 PM NZST Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 05/04/2017 12:43 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Thursday, 4 May 2017 1:31:52 AM NZST Patchwork wrote: > >> * Issue Series sent to the wrong mailing list > > [test_target_mailing_list] > >> Suggested fix Send the series again to the correct mailing list (ML) > >> Suggested ML [email protected] [http://git.yoctoproject.org/ cgit/ > > cgit.cgi/poky/] > > > > Leo - looks like this is another false positive. > > Actually, no - one of the patches accidentally included a file from > meta-poky. Still, could be reported better: > > 1) Should refer to a specific patch where the issue is > 2) Should, if possible, refer to specific files in the patch that are > causing the problem.
Right, agreed on both counts. I guess we were trying to catch the more common case of people sending entire patchsets to the wrong list. > 3) The problem is not the wrong mailing list, the problem is that the > patch should be splitted up and sent to several lists :) The question is can an automated tool tell the difference? I guess even if it can't though we can be honest about that in the message i.e. "Wrong mailing list, or incorrectly split patch" or something like that. > In general, why run these checks after the patches have been already > posted for review? That is adding unnecessary friction. Why not have > them as a git hook, that is run locally when making the commit? The original idea was that the tests could also be run from your local machine (could easily be as a git hook), and whilst it's not as easy as I might have liked it is doable - however even if it were much easier, we have to be realistic and acknowledge that most people still won't do it. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
