From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devtools: check commit log fixes syntax
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <20190130113527.GD157424@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20190129153052.38634-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <f36dd119-e3ed-80fd-9004-ce7ff2bba989@intel.com>
 <20190130112934.GB157424@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <2527672.4HATR1JlfD@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, david.marchand@redhat.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B231B2AB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:35:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2527672.4HATR1JlfD@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:31:21PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 30/01/2019 12:29, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:15:44AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > On 1/29/2019 8:41 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 29/01/2019 16:30, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > >> Fixes line commit id length defined as 12 in fixline alias:
> > > >> fixline = log -1 --abbrev=12 --format='Fixes: %h (\"%s\")%nCc: %ae'
> > > >>
> > > >> Check if the Fixes line commit id length matches the defined value.
> > > > 
> > > > This check was missing on purpose, in order to not be too strict.
> > > > I think it's OK if the length of the SHA1 is not always the same.
> > > 
> > > That is OK, if we don't want to be strict on this, I will update patch as rejected.
> > > 
> > I think having this check is still good. It's not enforcing the rule, just
> > warning when violated. In 99% of cases this warning should be fixed IMHO,
> > especially if you guys are fixing these manually anyway.
> 
> I don't fix it manually. I think SHA1 length has no importance.
> Why do you think it should be fixed?
> 
Neatness and consistency. Since we provide on the site the expected syntax
for the fixes line, why not check for its use?

/Bruce