Aaron Conole <[email protected]> writes: > Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> writes: > >> 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. > > Makes sense. I'll work on it when I'm back from my PTO.
So, I'm modifying the bot - just before it switches branches, it will save off the latest checkpatch. That lets new changes on master be invoked, and backports will use the latest checkpatch versions. I'll hook it up today. Sound reasonable? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
