On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:24:51PM -0700, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 4/2/19 12:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 04:45:16AM +0000, Jon Mason wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:41 AM Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/1/19 6:20 PM, akuster808 wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 4/1/19 4:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 15:33 -0700, akuster808 wrote: > >>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have noticed a large number of git commits with no header > >>>>>> information being accepted. > >>>>> Can you be more specific about what "no header information" means? You > >>>>> mean a shortlog and no full log message? > >>>> Commits with just a "subject" and signoff. No additional information > >>> If you can convey the reason for the change in just the subject, that is > >>> acceptable.. but there is -always- supposed to be a signed-off-by line > >>> according > >>> to our guidelines. > >>> > >>> So if you see this, I think we need to step back and figure out where and > >>> why > >>> it's happening and get it resolved in the future. > >>> > >>> (Places I've seen in the past were one-off mistakes and clearly that -- > >>> so it > >>> wasn't anything that we needed to work on a correction.) > >>> > >>> --Mark > >>> > >>>> We tend to reference back to how the kernel does things. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > >>>> These two sections in particular. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) Describe your changes > >>>> > >>>> Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or 5000 > >>>> lines of > >>>> a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that motivated you to > >>>> do this > >>>> work. Convince the reviewer that there is a problem worth fixing and > >>>> that it > >>>> makes sense for them to read past the first paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> along with this section. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 14) The canonical patch format > >>>> > >>>> This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note > >>>> that, if > >>>> you have your patches stored in a |git| repository, proper patch > >>>> formatting can > >>>> be had with |git format-patch|. The tools cannot create the necessary > >>>> text, > >>>> though, so read the instructions below anyway. > >>>> > >>>> The canonical patch subject line is: > >>>> > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase > >>>> > >>>> The canonical patch message body contains the following: > >>>> > >>>> * A |from| line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty > >>>> line > >>>> (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author). > >>>> * The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which > >>>> will be > >>>> copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. > >>>> * An empty line. > >>>> * The |Signed-off-by:| lines, described above, which will also go > >>>> in the > >>>> changelog. > >>>> * A marker line containing simply |---|. > >>>> * Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. > >>>> * The actual patch (|diff| output). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Armin > >> There are existing git hooks that can be used to detect and fail to > >> merge patches like this. For Linux, I have the following in > >> .git/hooks/pre-commit > >> #!/bin/sh > >> exec git diff --cached | scripts/checkpatch.pl - > > FWIW, over in U-Boot land I do: > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -q --git origin/master.. > > as part of checking things prior to pushing to master. > Having hooks is fine but after the fact. It puts the burden back on the > Layer maintainer to resolve. If we think more info is better, it needs > to happen at time of change submittal.
Note that I'm not talking about a hook, I'm talking about what's part of my CI process. And when something pops up there is when I grab the patch in question and push back on the submitter. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
