Would it be better if 'CLA: trivial’ is in the commit message but no CLA on file, then a new label like ’warn: no CLA but trivial’ is added? This can inform the committer who will merge the PR for the CLA condition of the commits.
Regards, Paul Yang > On Dec 12, 2019, at 5:29 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky <beld...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Matt, > > As > - the contributor agreed to sign the CLA and > - there was a mark that CLA is signed and > - all the necessary approves were present > I decided that there is no problem to merge. > > BTW, I am not sure the PR was trivial enough. > > Anyway, the responsibility was mine, not the git one :) > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 PM Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org > <mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote: > I notice that PR 10594 (Add support for otherName:NAIRealm in output) > got merged yesterday: > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/10594 > <https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/10594> > > The commit description contained "CLA: trivial" and so the "hold: cla > required" label was not automatically applied to the PR. But the > discussion in the PR suggested a CLA should be submitted. But it got > merged anyway! Fortunately the CLA had already been processed - just not > noted in the PR. So, in this case, it makes no difference. > > I think this points to a possible flaw in our workflow for dealing with > trivial changes. Because the "CLA: trivial" header suppresses the "hold: > cla required" label and the git hooks don't complain when commits get > pushed with the "CLA: trivial" header and no CLA on file, it seems > possible to me that we could push commit all the way through the process > without the reviewers even realising that the author is claiming > triviality on the commit. > > Not sure what the solution to that is. > > Matt > > > -- > SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
