Re: [PATCH 1/8] scripts/checkpatch: validate fixes against origin/master

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@oss.qualcomm.com> writes:

> On 10/29/2026 9:26 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@oss.qualcomm.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 10/29/2026 8:13 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>> The current check for a referenced fix commit relies on the developer
>>>> keeping their master branch up to date which is not always grunted. If
>>>> you create your branches directly from origin/master this will keep
>>>> failing.
>>>>
>>>> Given that origin/master should always be up to date (module the
>>>> developer eschewing convention) lets use that in the test instead.
>>>>
>>>> checkpatch complains about the line lengths but this seems to be
>>>> standard for the perl script so I didn't try and fix it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or... you can use something else as origin, with origin/master not being
>>> updated, and master as a tracking branch to upstream/master, and in this
>>> case, this patch doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Using master instead of origin/master has the advantage to not hardcode
>>> what your remotes should be.
>> 
>> origin is the default when you clone a repo. We could get really complex
>> and query the tracking remote for the current branch. But if your deeply
>> forked then that obviates the test.
>>
>
> I am aware that origin is the default remote.
> In my case, I always use "upstream" to reference the original project,
> and "origin" for my personal fork. As a result, origin/master does not
> always track upstream/master.

So master in that case won't be correct either?

-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro