From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA3A1D618E for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 03:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761967734; cv=none; b=hWX5H5QoLpoZKDqQfY+gGwbPJCD6uN2Wrr4yUyE1tlPxTxaWR3SKOxpNomCnSssYbKvYyYNakg/IHmYszvXhRfHLCUVwIGvXKD3tTzuEhpl04Nv8g/8zJfaqUj1SnE4Zw/QwPNub6wq4CvqsCasX5PR9GleW3odIGsCSl4zg9zU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761967734; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ktx3Ja/EM3cubQssjSSpMnkJ1+8GyRWXAcjIcTTJdSs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FV2GQEnbp9cdj177JEQ+0y0bJONWx+RLIT5lqqjk3WC/rdlPAiqgajJUSISZX8Eh/jyzZDy3qbU4TLebpFpb8mOMz5tszVCxssFfvMYTZA/PzptjwK2mC/vutemdjh69xnmZv5VGroKVUlXhidT97aRkUo2n/B0PnU/0WmIJTbA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=POcDwgUo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="POcDwgUo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) id D199CC113D0; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 03:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CD3FC4CEFB for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 03:28:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.kernel.org 7CD3FC4CEFB Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1761967732; x=1793503732; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=Ktx3Ja/EM3cubQssjSSpMnkJ1+8GyRWXAcjIcTTJdSs=; b=POcDwgUoQRgMV12XUuCTdzN4RtxdsB8RhKD+0qqt+PWgffzXo2im8w/Y SsZYFwc9HvLyCyyjbQJJ1s3haSkHW7fnZWxyjlHAvEryGTyDwPSVtthoc LSz4s7Ztw0fvd4Wrzj40c/j42PrcispJieWvxMz4sEbQxn05M+l5hErYQ 78LLDaLbrTam/kvlGwN+2Y2DUR9VapDcGDYTaTT8bh14nZiAMnzS2m3dr hJDqgxn/oEiz57Zfs+caBfGemAKEtDKppAdj6leVmguKi6meEubAxU0y5 8RhZTGuqQ5kbaYUL0YnR6nYa7tJ2jqKUkc8kcmIDla85qxI/2LmpxKADW A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: QRkdrW/wR7OquHtezgZP8w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: jDVfEKShSkmJlTcsoSx4SA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11599"; a="74424539" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,271,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="74424539" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Oct 2025 20:28:51 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: d0VUQbKeQIefTFjPu5Bmog== X-CSE-MsgGUID: lmfKS/x/RsmZxfmRW5bADg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,271,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="191533319" Received: from c02x38vbjhd2mac.jf.intel.com ([10.88.27.157]) by orviesa005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Oct 2025 20:28:51 -0700 From: Marc Herbert To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: tools@kernel.org Subject: Re: Unreleased, multi-lines git_filter_repo fix required to run b4 tests? In-Reply-To: <20251031-flashy-bouncy-macaw-2d5afa@lemur> (Konstantin Ryabitsev's message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:00:31 -0400") References: <20251031-flashy-bouncy-macaw-2d5afa@lemur> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 20:28:45 -0700 Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Konstantin Ryabitsev writes: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 08:49:01PM -0700, Marc Herbert wrote: >> So what really baffles me is: how come no one else noticed this before? > > They have -- it's a recurring problem for packagers. Ha, then I was searching in the wrong place: here. But wait... only packagers run tests? Not the people submitting b4 changes on this list!? The "xfail" patch I just submitted should be enough to please packagers. > I've been prodding git-filter-repo to release a fixed version -- if > more people tell them about it, maybe this will actually happen? Not sure what is a good stick there but for sure my xfail patch and the corresponding effort should provide strong, additional evidence of how painful this has been - whether you merge it or not. So... I've done my share? :-) > This bug doesn't really affect real usage of b4, because this only manifests > itself when someone sets the cover letter strategy to use git branch > descriptions (which is what tests do). Good to know, thx.