linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 165 bytes --]

Hi all,

Commit

  0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Commit
> 
>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
> 
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> 

In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
wasn't present in drm-misc-next.

I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply
the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]

On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Commit
>>
>>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>>
>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>
> 
> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
> 
> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply

... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so that I can apply...

> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.

The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the changes
for Xe.
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1450 bytes --]

Hi Luben,

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Commit
> >>
> >>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
> >>
> >> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >>  
> > 
> > In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
> > were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
> > wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
> > 
> > I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
> > when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply  
> 
> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so that I can apply...
> 
> > the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.  
> 
> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the changes
> for Xe.

None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Luben,
> 
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Commit
>>>>
>>>>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>>>>
>>>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>>>  
>>>
>>> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
>>> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
>>> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
>>>
>>> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
>>> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply  
>>
>> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so that I can apply...
>>
>>> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.  
>>
>> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
>> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
>> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
>> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the changes
>> for Xe.
> 
> None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
> be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.

Hi Stephen,

Noted!

So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one single cherry-pick whose
original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my Signed-off-by in those
rare circumstances.

Thanks for the clarification!
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

Hi Luben,

BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
needs the changes.

I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Luben,
> 
> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> needs the changes.
> 
> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
Thanks again! :-)
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
> > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > needs the changes.
> > 
> > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> Thanks again! :-)

In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.

We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
ask us :)

Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
use it?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
> > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > > needs the changes.
> > > 
> > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
> > 
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> > Thanks again! :-)
> 
> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
> 
> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
> ask us :)
> 
> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
> use it?

Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
very clear warning if you bypass it).

If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
fix.

Also backmerges (and in generally anything that is about cross-tree patch
wrangling, like cherry-picking) are maintainer duties in drm-misc and not
for committers:

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/maintainer-drm-misc.html#maintainer-s-duties

I think it'd be really good for Luben to go through the docs and supply a
patch to clarify this, if it's not clear from the existing docs.

We have some wording in the committer docs, but maybe it's not clear
enough:

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer-drm-misc.html#merge-criteria

"Any non-linear actions (backmerges, merging topic branches and sending
out pull requests) are only done by the official drm-misc maintainers (see
MAINTAINERS, or ask #dri-devel), and not by committers. See the examples
section in dim for more info"

Minor screw-ups like this gives us a great opportunity to improve the
tooling&docs, let's use it.

Cheers, Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2054 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:56:32PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Luben,
> > 
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >>> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Commit
> >>>>
> >>>>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
> >>>>
> >>>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
> >>> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
> >>> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
> >>> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply  
> >>
> >> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so that I can apply...
> >>
> >>> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.  
> >>
> >> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
> >> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
> >> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
> >> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the changes
> >> for Xe.
> > 
> > None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
> > be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
>
> Noted!
> 
> So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one single cherry-pick whose
> original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my Signed-off-by in those
> rare circumstances.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification!

In order to move forward with this, can you provide your SoB here for
that patch so that we can at least point to it in the drm-misc-next PR?

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2195 bytes --]

On 2023-11-16 04:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:56:32PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>> On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Luben,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Commit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those changes
>>>>> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
>>>>> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and drm-misc-fixes,
>>>>> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can apply  
>>>>
>>>> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so that I can apply...
>>>>
>>>>> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.  
>>>>
>>>> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
>>>> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
>>>> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
>>>> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the changes
>>>> for Xe.
>>>
>>> None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
>>> be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
>>
>> Noted!
>>
>> So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one single cherry-pick whose
>> original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my Signed-off-by in those
>> rare circumstances.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification!
> 
> In order to move forward with this, can you provide your SoB here for
> that patch so that we can at least point to it in the drm-misc-next PR?
> 
> Maxime

Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com>

-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2002 bytes --]

Hi Luben,

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
> > > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
> > > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
> > > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
> > > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
> > > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
> > > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
> > > > needs the changes.
> > > > 
> > > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
> > > 
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
> > > Thanks again! :-)
> > 
> > In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
> > drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
> > 
> > We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
> > ask us :)
> > 
> > Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
> > use it?
> 
> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
> very clear warning if you bypass it).
> 
> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
> fix.

It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
again

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2131 bytes --]

On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Luben,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>
>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>
>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>> ask us :)
>>>
>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>> use it?
>>
>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>
>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>> fix.
> 
> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
> again
> 
> Maxime

There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> Hi Luben,
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
>>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>>
>>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>>> ask us :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>>> use it?
>>>
>>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>>
>>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>>> fix.
>> 
>> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
>> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
>> again
>> 
>> Maxime
>
> There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.

Wait what?

What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim?

If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed
branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with
following all the other maintainer tools documentation.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree

[Luben Tuikov]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2659 bytes --]

On 2023-11-24 08:20, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi Luben,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can
>>>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by
>>>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was
>>>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with
>>>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next).  Much
>>>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears
>>>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that
>>>>>>> needs the changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future.
>>>>>> Thanks again! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the
>>>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to
>>>>> ask us :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you
>>>>> use it?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying
>>>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own
>>>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by
>>>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a
>>>> very clear warning if you bypass it).
>>>>
>>>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to
>>>> fix.
>>>
>>> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we
>>> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen
>>> again
>>>
>>> Maxime
>>
>> There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in.
> 
> Wait what?
> 
> What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim?
> 
> If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed
> branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with
> following all the other maintainer tools documentation.

Hi Jani,

I only use dim, ever.
-- 
Regards,
Luben

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]