Hi Simon,
On Saturday, March 2, 2013 1:22:28 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:56:50 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:50:44 +0100 (CET), Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:46:07 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:10:40 +0100, Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com wrote: Incidentally, CC:ing Simon:
Signed-off-by: Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com
Changes in v8:
- New patch.
Changes in v7: None Changes in v6: None Changes in v5: None Changes in v4: None Changes in v3: None Changes in v2: None
Is this produced by patman?
Yes [...]
Ok, then, don't bother to fix patman's behavior manually in your own patches -- I'll try and see if I can submit a patch to fix patman itself.
OK.
patman had also removed some "Reviewed-by" that I had to restore manually before sending. This is a documented behavior, but not cool.
And contrary to what the documentation says, patman adds my SoB line even if I have forced another SoB in the commit message, which I also had to fix manually.
Yes I have hit this myself. Someone should do a couple of patches to fix this. I will put it on my list in case someone else doesn't get to it first. Specifically:
- Don't touch/add Signed-off-by: but perhaps just want if there is not
at least one in a patch
- Don't touch Reviewed-by: in the normal case - but perhaps provide a
flag to remove this Geritt tag
Thanks, that'd be great. And also a 3rd one for what Albert said (which he might do himself): - Do not report version changes before a patch has been introduced: if a patch has been introduced in version n, start reporting version changes for this patch from version n. This will probably require a new tag to tell patman in which version a patch has been created, e.g.:
Patch-creation: n
Best regards, Benoît