On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:22:18PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Kevin Traynor <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On 12/19/2018 08:23 AM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:57 PM 0-day Robot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Bleep bloop.  Greetings Darrell Ball, I am a robot and I have tried out
> >>> your patch.
> >>> Thanks for your contribution.
> >>>
> >>> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting.  See the details below.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> checkpatch:
> >>> ERROR: Too many signoffs; are you missing Co-authored-by lines?
> >>> Lines checked: 37, Warnings: 0, Errors: 1
> >>>
> >> 
> >> I don't understand this complaint.
> >> 
> >
> > This is a false positive. I've seen patchwork duplicate signed-off-by's
> > in an mbox before (reported to Stephen,
> > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/219) which would cause
> > this error, but downloading this mbox locally it seems ok.
> 
> It's a false positive, but not for that reason.  The bot keeps up to date
> with the most recent checkpatch, so it stamps a sign-off as part of the
> delivery chain. The older branch checkpatch version doesn't understand
> that.
> 
> We probably should either backport 3267343a8487 ("checkpatch: Improve
> accuracy and specificity of sign-off checking.") to the relevant
> branches so that when someone submits a patch on the branch it's
> checked, -OR- improve the robot to just save off the latest checkpatch
> version before starting to apply patches.  I like the idea of the former
> so that checkpatch changes can self-check, but it comes with a drawback
> (like checkpatch changes won't be invoked until after they're applied to
> the tree .. I guess it isn't such a big deal, though).

Hmm.  I'm inclined to suggest that the robot should always use the
latest checkpatch regardless of branch.  Otherwise we'll have to
make a policy of backporting checkpatch updates, and I'm not really in
favor of that.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to