From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037857316D for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:07:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v96so61889610ioi.0 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:07:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:organization :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RqXEtBiFAWYldUnIg5K7M7EMOm4gwcTmBGlv1x/LESQ=; b=sYIVFKcB9E6K104VdgK0NmcPXW53ZKUx3l4x3GdxXNJrP1kDqF1NCfbFtyC0acHV97 quJoXY1sowaoyB1MMcu+KEAjbHJYRcV8EaynLFle3y9elS6HJEbFXOK3j9XQWAJOgoLP V2YlIrcAFAr4GQu/IMZis68M+lilB8FlwQqAwTU2fFgEw9vL1/FytzmjWuiBaR5Jtp/K 7MbSt4uEA9rsp4NJFv2ZQOy8OMrX1wQxL/meelKHHC/SqGO990biAlpc4WndwUh1Og9l oMOgUFKxX2KSOKXS6RUN9ALsQuCTH1nW7QoWO4Lnb+KPiaMqMtEHWkpyFJJEui94xHRE 7QNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RqXEtBiFAWYldUnIg5K7M7EMOm4gwcTmBGlv1x/LESQ=; b=gcKmjCfVLT7ub2FWar4bbB2cZSaOlFoNiVejPWo6sgxR78O9QUHuIwyJzjoX59CREC ZTg0fOQz3HuumBhn4nc83yxsU5WCulOijk7uVzU/gKUhT41yI5HhIK2denCj2Elivbfh cPck26aO3T9oCu210cQZNzdFa2cDdLPtLjkPxLBn8onhtRQAOHpWHqgdAzTeUm0dkUft 4git+yK3C7WRtCcdn0H8JyZ5lK53mi605lSBPBps/NiLIbOawVYh5V5AtM/9dKc+xenx Yl0IOoW2gVGwsicXvjK/v/XNTQIbywTAefL5pYM4TQCZUQW5+yviXSmQo2zFa82Vbps9 VMVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKZIXkrjFO23qpgxoa1uo21Uvb7ncZo8b2RMyl9ZJRNemQCtUFmzoWOPU4Fs7tKyS+C X-Received: by 10.107.167.204 with SMTP id q195mr14881674ioe.170.1484921227407; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p57A56DD5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [87.165.109.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 62sm3102283itl.1.2017.01.20.06.07.05 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:07:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1484921224.23233.123.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:07:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170120135343.23276.63313@do.openembedded.org> References: <20170120135343.23276.63313@do.openembedded.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOKclyBwYXRjaHRlc3Q6IGZhaWx1cmUgZm9yIFVFRkkgKyBTZWN1cmUgQm9vdCArIHFlbXUgKHJldjQp?= X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:07:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 13:53 +0000, Patchwork wrote: > * Issue A patch file has been added, but does not have a Signed-off-by tag [test_signed_off_by_presence] > Suggested fix Sign off the added patch file (meta/recipes-extended/acpica/acpitests/aapits-linux.patch) > > * Issue Added patch file is missing Upstream-Status in the header [test_upstream_status_presence] > Suggested fix Add Upstream-Status: to the header of meta/recipes-extended/acpica/acpitests/aapits-linux.patch (possible values: Pending, Submitted, Accepted, Backport, Denied, Inappropriate) This is intentional: I'm not the original author and didn't want to mess too much with the recipe. Should I add Upstream-Status in a separate commit? > * Issue Series does not apply on top of target branch [test_series_merge_on_head] > Suggested fix Rebase your series on top of targeted branch > Targeted branch master (currently at ce5c7075d5) Argh, apparently I only meant to rebase and then didn't. Will resolve this and send V4. But it's good that patchtest is finding this promptly, kudos! -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.