On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:15:30 +0100, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > As for a possible semi-automated solution: > > The problem is more fundamental: currently both the GitHub bot and > the git commit hook only watch out for the 'CLA: trivial' marker.
Correct re the clacheck hook (that's the Github hook we're talking about), but re the update hook on our git server, it does a little more than that, as already shown. > One possible solution to this problem could be the following procedure: > > Add three mutually exclusive [cla: *] labels: > > [cla: ok] (green) > [cla: trivial] (green) > [cla: missing] (red) > > The CLA bot *always* sets the [cla: ok] label if it finds a CLA on > file. Otherwise, it sets the [cla: missing] label, unless the [cla: > trivial] label is already set. I'm not sure why the [cla: ok] or [cla: missing] labels are needed. We already have a [hold: cla required] label that comes up when there's a lack of CLA and of "CLA: trivial" marker, so [cla: ok] and [cla: missing] seem redundant. However, contrary to you, I would have the [cla: trivial] label added automatically!... whenever clacheck finds a "CLA: trivial" line in any of the commits. > The [cla: trivial] label can only be set manually by a committer, > and only after the consent between contributor and both reviewers > has been reached. Sounds superfluous, considering there's already a need for two approvals, as well as the [approved: done] label set. Yet another manual label will make zero difference, as long as all reviewers can clearly see that there's a "CLA: trivial" commit (i.e. that the [cla: trivial] label has been set by clacheck). After all, the problem we have hit is that "CLA: trivial" can go undetected, so let's make sure it doesn't, without adding a lot of other redundant mechanisms that only make our lives harder, yeah? Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/