On Monday, December 9, 2019, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > The Nacked-by tag can be used to manually hold a patch for further review, > or by automatic CI because of failing test. > > We often miss travis-ci and shippable failures. These CI provide a easy > way to send email on failure, we can integrate the Nacked-by use there. > > We can easily have patchew script send a Nacked-by tag. > > If there is a consensus about using this tag, the following patch can be > added to Peter's management scripts: > https://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/misc-scripts.git/ > I always assumed that pull requests by sub-maintainers should contain "ready for merging" code (justified, reviewed, tested, ...). Why would ever a sub-maintainer send something that doesn't comply to these conditions? I think, in general, this tag would do more harm than good, allowing frivolous blocking of patches, and fixing a process that already works, without any need. Not acknowledged by me. Sincerely, Aleksandar > If we move to another workflow, having this uniform tag can help future > merging scripts to avoid patch on hold to get automatically merged. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: make-pullreq: Do not automatically merge NAcked commits > > The 'Nacked-by' tag is a polite way of holding a patch for > further review. Reviewers might share their disapproval with > it (see [1]). > > CI scripts might NAck a patch if it breaks testing. > QEMU already thought about using this tag for CI by the past > (see [2]). > > The patchwork tool already collects this tag (see [3]). > > Also, there was a discussion at the last Open Source Summit > about standardizing it ([4]). > > Maintainers might miss a such Nacked-by tag. Help them by > providing a last resort check before merging pull requests. > > [1] https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/SubmittingP > atches/#index1h1 > [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-01/msg00196.html > [3] http://git.ozlabs.org/?p=patchwork;a=blobdiff;f=apps/patchwo > rk/models.py;h=fa213dc03e;hp=8871df0259e;hb=487b53576f;hpb=a59ebf107d84b > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/CACT4Y+bxPxQ64HEO2uGRkbk9v > jseg64y10lak4c2k54j7gy...@mail.gmail.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > --- > make-pullreq | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/make-pullreq b/make-pullreq > index 61c0f1d..fff0b2d 100755 > --- a/make-pullreq > +++ b/make-pullreq > @@ -108,6 +108,17 @@ if [ "$bad" = "yes" ]; then > exit 1 > fi > > +# Check no commit contains a nacked-by tag > +for rev in $(git rev-list master..HEAD); do > + if git log ${rev}^! | grep -iq "Nacked-by:"; then > + echo "Error: commit ${rev} nacked" > + bad=yes > + fi > +done > +if [ "$bad" = "yes" ]; then > + exit 1 > +fi > + > # Check whether any authors needs to be corrected after SPF rewrites > if git shortlog --author=qemu-devel@nongnu.org master..HEAD | grep .; > then > echo "ERROR: pull request includes commits attributed to list" > -- > 2.21.0 > > >
