From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B231B2AB for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:35:31 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2019 03:35:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,540,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="314836051" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.54]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2019 03:35:29 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:35:28 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:35:28 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang , david.marchand@redhat.com Message-ID: <20190130113527.GD157424@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190129153052.38634-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20190130112934.GB157424@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <2527672.4HATR1JlfD@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2527672.4HATR1JlfD@xps> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: check commit log fixes syntax X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:35:32 -0000 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