Re: [DIM DOCS PATCH 2/2] doc: clarify what type of changes are acceptable at commit time

From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"DRM maintainer tools announcements, discussion,
	and development" <dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [DIM DOCS PATCH 2/2] doc: clarify what type of changes are acceptable at commit time
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 10:02:11 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k1q8onik.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uF8pTDGnp_PyKvuR-of2QBQnRzu0F1Z=FGphC6SWvAiBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> As a rule of thumb, don't change patches while committing.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drm-intel.rst | 7 +++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drm-intel.rst b/drm-intel.rst
>>>> index baf48f459dd9..ad8ff9739336 100644
>>>> --- a/drm-intel.rst
>>>> +++ b/drm-intel.rst
>>>> @@ -196,6 +196,13 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check:
>>>>    coordinate with maintainers to avoid unnecessary pain with conflicts. Usually
>>>>    some explicit merges are needed to avoid git getting lost.
>>>>
>>>> +* As a general rule, do not modify the patches while applying, apart from the
>>>> +  commit message. If the patch conflicts, or needs to be changed due to review,
>>>> +  have the author rebase, update and resend. Any change at this stage is a
>>>> +  potential issue bypassing CI.
>>>>
>>> Should we also mention that merge conflicts need to be told to
>>> maintainers, so that they can do a backmerge? Just because this blew
>>> up recently for drm-misc ...
>>
>> Added bullet
>>
>> * Please notify maintainers (IRC is fine) of new merge conflicts during drm-tip
>>   rebuild, so that they can do backmerges as needed.
>>
>> and pushed to get this done. Please amend if that's not what you wanted.
>
> Personally I preferred committers told me before they wrestled a patch
> into submission because it missed a required patch, then wrestled
> drm-tip into submission with a nasty conflict on top. Doing a
> backmerge first, pushing 2nd is much simpler, and fits into the bullet
> about not modifying patches.
>
> I'd have added something like "Also don't modify patches due to
> conflicts. Instead ask maintainers to backmerge your required baseline
> patches first, since that avoids tons of headaches later on with
> conflicts in integration trees and pull requests." Or something like
> that.

Oh, I misunderstood you, in part because one of my original bullets
already says don't modify patches due to conflicts. I thought with
"merge conflicts" you specifically meant drm-tip conflicts.

BR,
Jani.

> -Daniel
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>>> +  At most, minor comment and whitespace tweaks are acceptable.
>>>> +
>>>>  On Confidence, Complexity, and Transparency
>>>>  -------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.11.0
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dim-tools mailing list
>>>> dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx