Hello Joe,
Am 04.09.2019 um 01:03 schrieb Joe Hershberger:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:05 AM Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Tom,
In message a78f0b04-c3f7-45d5-e9ac-90522dbefc2e@denx.de Heiko Schocher wrote:
I am just testing U-Boot Environment flags and they do not work anymore with current mainline U-Boot ...
...
reason is your commit:
commit 7d4776545b0f8a8827e5d061206faf61c9ba6ea9 Author: Patrick Delaunay patrick.delaunay@st.com Date: Thu Apr 18 17:32:49 2019 +0200
env: solve compilation error in SPLLooking into the history of this, I wonder if we could / should have prevented this.
As far as I can see, Patrick's patch series has not been reviewed by others, probably because general intetest in STM32 is not that big at the moment. I can see no Acked-by:, Reviewed-by: nor Tested-by: tags - nothing.
The whole patch series was then pulled from the u-boot-stm repository.
However, there was not only STM related code in there. There were changes to common code like the environment handling. common code was changed without review and without testing.
It seems this should be unacceptable even if it's in the area of interest. Isn't an Acked-by generally accepted as required?
Yes, but it seems we are not strict enough here.
Are there ways to prevent this?
Yes, we can appeal to the custodians to be more careful, but I assume they are already doing their best.
It seems the diffstat should be a quick way to see this, so I would think not quite their best. Maybe a reminder / recommendation that it be reviewed by custodians?
Yes. I recommend to use patman for sending patches, or at least to do a dry run with it, so you get a cc list (which is sometimes to long) of people who may interested in the patch.
It might have even been better if this had been a sub-system with a clear maintainer, but there is no such person for the environment code.
How can we prevent this in the future?
Is there any tooling around the MAINTAINERS file that can be used to reg-flag PRs that contain changes outside of the tree's area of effect?
I do not know.
Should we define "interested developers" for such areas that have no custodian (the "Designated reviewer") entry in the MAINTAINERS file could be used for this, for example)?
I like that idea, though in this specific case I think there should be a maintainer for env.
Wasn;t aware of the the "Designated reviewer" entry in MAINTAINERS, I think, this is a good idea. And of course, if someone volunteers for mainting env, this would be good.
But we should monitor (or find a script which checks this), that patches not acked by a subsystem custodian not go in outside of a pull request from the custodian. Problem is here, that we have parts of code, which have no custodian ...
I can only speak for i2c, which often get patches in patchseries for other custodians. I try to catch such patches and add a Review or Acked-by ... but I do not catch all... so using patman would help, as I get added to cc ...
bye, Heiko