* CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck
@ 2023-01-31 9:52 tlaronde
2023-01-31 15:43 ` [edk2-devel] " Michael D Kinney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2023-01-31 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: devel
As requested, yesterday, for a trivial correction in BaseTools,
removing useless libuuid dependency in GenFv/, I made a Pull Request
and triggered a CI check test. All went fine.
Today, looking if the patches have been reviewed and merged, I saw that
since the master has changed, it required a merge. I did it and this
triggered once more a CI check and this time, there is one failure: the
PatchCheck (required) while everything builds without ado.
So some questions:
1) When a pull request with a CI check test has been made and passed
successfully, should one simply leave it as is---even if the head
moves---waiting for reviewer approval and merge?
2) Is it known that this procedure (merging and re-trigerring) leads to
a failure of PatchCheck for whatever reason?
3) In my case, the source modification should have impacted only Unix
like GCC builds: the modification of the GNUmakefile; the removal of
inclusions that dependend on __FreeBSD__ and __GNUC__ that is only GCC
related compilations. Is there a way to limit the CI compilation to a
subset (in this case GCC builds)? Because it seems to me a waste
of computer time for such a limited modification...
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [edk2-devel] CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck
2023-01-31 9:52 CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck tlaronde
@ 2023-01-31 15:43 ` Michael D Kinney
2023-01-31 15:54 ` tlaronde
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael D Kinney @ 2023-01-31 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, tlaronde@polynum.com; +Cc: Kinney, Michael D
Your resync introduced a merge commit:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/3969/commits
We do not allow merge commits and only allow linear history.
Please rebase and resubmit.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of tlaronde@polynum.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:53 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Subject: [edk2-devel] CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck
>
> As requested, yesterday, for a trivial correction in BaseTools,
> removing useless libuuid dependency in GenFv/, I made a Pull Request
> and triggered a CI check test. All went fine.
>
> Today, looking if the patches have been reviewed and merged, I saw that
> since the master has changed, it required a merge. I did it and this
> triggered once more a CI check and this time, there is one failure: the
> PatchCheck (required) while everything builds without ado.
>
> So some questions:
>
> 1) When a pull request with a CI check test has been made and passed
> successfully, should one simply leave it as is---even if the head
> moves---waiting for reviewer approval and merge?
>
> 2) Is it known that this procedure (merging and re-trigerring) leads to
> a failure of PatchCheck for whatever reason?
>
> 3) In my case, the source modification should have impacted only Unix
> like GCC builds: the modification of the GNUmakefile; the removal of
> inclusions that dependend on __FreeBSD__ and __GNUC__ that is only GCC
> related compilations. Is there a way to limit the CI compilation to a
> subset (in this case GCC builds)? Because it seems to me a waste
> of computer time for such a limited modification...
>
> --
> Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
> http://www.kergis.com/
> http://kertex.kergis.com/
> Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [edk2-devel] CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck
2023-01-31 15:43 ` [edk2-devel] " Michael D Kinney
@ 2023-01-31 15:54 ` tlaronde
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2023-01-31 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: devel, michael.d.kinney
Hello,
Le Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 03:43:43PM +0000, Michael D Kinney a écrit :
> Your resync introduced a merge commit:
>
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/3969/commits
>
> We do not allow merge commits and only allow linear history.
>
> Please rebase and resubmit.
OK. Thanks for the answer!
T. Laronde
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of tlaronde@polynum.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:53 AM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > Subject: [edk2-devel] CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck
> >
> > As requested, yesterday, for a trivial correction in BaseTools,
> > removing useless libuuid dependency in GenFv/, I made a Pull Request
> > and triggered a CI check test. All went fine.
> >
> > Today, looking if the patches have been reviewed and merged, I saw that
> > since the master has changed, it required a merge. I did it and this
> > triggered once more a CI check and this time, there is one failure: the
> > PatchCheck (required) while everything builds without ado.
> >
> > So some questions:
> >
> > 1) When a pull request with a CI check test has been made and passed
> > successfully, should one simply leave it as is---even if the head
> > moves---waiting for reviewer approval and merge?
> >
> > 2) Is it known that this procedure (merging and re-trigerring) leads to
> > a failure of PatchCheck for whatever reason?
> >
> > 3) In my case, the source modification should have impacted only Unix
> > like GCC builds: the modification of the GNUmakefile; the removal of
> > inclusions that dependend on __FreeBSD__ and __GNUC__ that is only GCC
> > related compilations. Is there a way to limit the CI compilation to a
> > subset (in this case GCC builds)? Because it seems to me a waste
> > of computer time for such a limited modification...
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
> > http://www.kergis.com/
> > http://kertex.kergis.com/
> > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-31 15:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-31 9:52 CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck tlaronde
2023-01-31 15:43 ` [edk2-devel] " Michael D Kinney
2023-01-31 15:54 ` tlaronde
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox