Remove small patch exception checking in hack/make/validate-dco #9083
Conversation
SvenDowideit
force-pushed
the
pr_out_remove_small_patch_exception_checking_in_hack_make_validate_dco
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3474083
to
f66bf37
Compare
|
@fredlf @jamtur01 to expand on this, the workflow I used was:
and then close the original PR, and add some nice words to the new one. If this is doesn't break the DCO chain ( @keeb ), then we have a workable solution, which we can further optimize by adding some more code to |
|
after discussing it a little, @tiborvass noted that we can automate the DCO in PR comment -> takeover PR and sign - I guess I'll be playing with some hooks soon :) |
|
It only makes sense that, if a comment a contribution is trivial / falls under the trivial guidelines for the agreement, that someone could theoretically sign it and contribute if the contributor has abandoned the process. Automation is also a win! I will check with legal to make sure that I am not misunderstanding. |
|
I don't really see how any of this makes life simpler for docs maintainers or contributors, but that's clearly not the use case we are solving for, so I will accept whatever the core maintainers say is the best workflow for docs to use. |
|
LGTM I'll close my PR for now and we can move forward with this version after @keeb can verify the workflow. |
|
LGTM pending @keeb's confirmation |
|
@SvenDowideit This will need a rebase Ping @keeb for confirmation. |
As we move forward on automating our pull request review process and tooling these exceptions hurt more than they help. For consistency we should not allow small patch exceptions for anything. The source of truth going forward for DCO and builds are the official drone status on each pull request. Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <crosbymichael@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Page <admwiggin@gmail.com>
…ge, or to use their own if its a trvial change Signed-off-by: Sven Dowideit <SvenDowideit@home.org.au>
SvenDowideit
force-pushed
the
pr_out_remove_small_patch_exception_checking_in_hack_make_validate_dco
branch
from
f66bf37
to
56e3f49
Compare
| @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ source "$(dirname "$BASH_SOURCE")/.validate" | |||
|
|
|||
| adds=$(validate_diff --numstat | awk '{ s += $1 } END { print s }') | |||
| dels=$(validate_diff --numstat | awk '{ s += $2 } END { print s }') | |||
| notDocs="$(validate_diff --numstat | awk '$3 !~ /^docs\// { print $3 }')" | |||
| #notDocs="$(validate_diff --numstat | awk '$3 !~ /^docs\// { print $3 }')" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine for now as it's what tianon wanted
|
ping @jfrazelle |
|
LGTM |
…exception_checking_in_hack_make_validate_dco Remove small patch exception checking in hack/make/validate-dco
|
lol @SvenDowideit at your branch name, do you think its long enough? |
|
@jfrazelle grin - blame gordon, that one what chosen by |
SvenDowideit
deleted the
pr_out_remove_small_patch_exception_checking_in_hack_make_validate_dco
branch
I propose allowing maintainers to add a DCO when its missing from the git commit.
Either by asking the commiter to add it to the Pull Request's comments, or by deciding its a trivial change, so can be signed by them.
replaces #9010
#9079 is an example of this in action.