At present warnings are produced across the whole set of patches when
parsing them. It is more useful to associate each warning with the patch
(or commit) that generated it.
Attach warnings to the Commit object and move them out of PatchStream.
Also avoid generating duplicate warnings for the same commit.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Collect response tags such as 'Reviewed-by' while parsing the stream.
This allows us to see what tags are present.
Add a new 'Fixes' tag also, since this is now quite common.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Collect response tags such as 'Reviewed-by' while parsing the stream.
This allows us to see what tags are present.
Add a new 'Fixes' tag also, since this is now quite common.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
As per the centithread on ksummit-discuss [1], there are folks who
feel that if a Change-Id is present in a developer's local commit that
said Change-Id could be interesting to include in upstream posts.
Specifically if two commits are posted with the same Change-Id there's
a reasonable chance that they are either the same commit or a newer
version of the same commit. Specifically this is because that's how
gerrit has trained people to work.
There is much angst about Change-Id in upstream Linux, but one thing
that seems safe and non-controversial is to include the Change-Id as
part of the string of crud that makes up a Message-Id.
Let's give that a try.
In theory (if there is enough adoption) this could help a tool more
reliably find various versions of a commit. This actually might work
pretty well for U-Boot where (I believe) quite a number of developers
use patman, so there could be critical mass (assuming that enough of
these people also use a git hook that adds Change-Id to their
commits). I was able to find this git hook by searching for "gerrit
change id git hook" in my favorite search engine.
In theory one could imagine something like this could be integrated
into other tools, possibly even git-send-email. Getting it into
patman seems like a sane first step, though.
NOTE: this patch is being posted using a patman containing this patch,
so you should be able to see the Message-Id of this patch and see that
it contains my local Change-Id, which ends in 2b9 if you want to
check.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-August/006739.html
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
When U-Boot started using SPDX tags we were among the early adopters and
there weren't a lot of other examples to borrow from. So we picked the
area of the file that usually had a full license text and replaced it
with an appropriate SPDX-License-Identifier: entry. Since then, the
Linux Kernel has adopted SPDX tags and they place it as the very first
line in a file (except where shebangs are used, then it's second line)
and with slightly different comment styles than us.
In part due to community overlap, in part due to better tag visibility
and in part for other minor reasons, switch over to that style.
This commit changes all instances where we have a single declared
license in the tag as both the before and after are identical in tag
contents. There's also a few places where I found we did not have a tag
and have introduced one.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Sometimes a commit should have notes enclosed with it rather
than withing the cover letter -- possibly even because there
is no cover letter. Add a 'Commit-notes' tag, similar to the
'Series-notes' one; lines between this tag and the next END
line are inserted in the patch right after the '---' commit
delimiter.
Change-Id: I01e99ae125607dc6dec08f3be8a5a0b37f0a483d
Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
(Updated README)
This comment is less than helpful. Since multiple tags are supported, add
an example of how multiple tags work.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
At present something like:
Revert "arm: Add cache operations"
will try to use
Revert "arm
as a tag. Clearly this is wrong, so fix it.
If the revert is intended to be tagged, then the tag can come before
the revert, perhaps. Alternatively the 'Cc' tag can be used in the commit
messages.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
What is this?
=============
This tool is a Python script which:
- Creates patch directly from your branch
- Cleans them up by removing unwanted tags
- Inserts a cover letter with change lists
- Runs the patches through checkpatch.pl and its own checks
- Optionally emails them out to selected people
It is intended to automate patch creation and make it a less
error-prone process. It is useful for U-Boot and Linux work so far,
since it uses the checkpatch.pl script.
It is configured almost entirely by tags it finds in your commits.
This means that you can work on a number of different branches at
once, and keep the settings with each branch rather than having to
git format-patch, git send-email, etc. with the correct parameters
each time. So for example if you put:
in one of your commits, the series will be sent there.
See the README file for full details.
END
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
