From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp26.services.sfr.fr (smtp26.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.210]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.16013.1675180457311983801 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:54:17 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="no key for verify" header.i=@polynum.com header.s=202006 header.b=d5nDCavS; spf=pass (domain: sfr.fr, ip: 93.17.128.210, mailfrom: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P5qNl36Rlz1LQLBX","contextId": "205d6242-012e-4b96-bf4d-5ed77235c1c6"} Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) by msfrf2633.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4P5qNl36Rlz1LQLBX; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:15 +0100 (CET) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P5qNl1mWMz1LQLBV","contextId": "9988bbcc-31bb-4f0b-9fb7-d19df8d7e9c6"} X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT X-sfr-spamrating: 40 X-sfr-spam: not-spam DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=polynum.com; s=202006; t=1675180455; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; bh=w2E7gjYvzcn+8 eb2WsDn6ijLMCrX0EH6Oh11thWDhWI=; b=d5nDCavS9KufUBKEUGhOqr27FPKYLgYIuskyDg0aY nTl7zREFXQbCH+cHkUIKHTYc2P7YuH0c+itYBrhLyPLoDTwpXtcDYeJfN72ummyvJ/sgEXydNMkZ IxYPhusjpIFMgBztNAdlKJgrekHKxp4q5ut7gwv1RkziA758LXoVsdAM8VmW/bc5eXhvjRoSrXaM utvbW5HlnVn1mEQIBXz6MoD9Svz6SZB+l3ws9cvVM/u+m/fR+YKIbcYW5uOPy8FpZcw830466Rfe daHjLCHndYJ6SqAeGl3T6eBwjGK0LeN44TLXxCStkdAR66Auo/sxdIlhOcNH7EWnVh2ILjpkQ== X-List-Unsubscribe: Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) by msfrf2633.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTPSA id 4P5qNl1mWMz1LQLBV; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:15 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: sfr.fr; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=thierry.laronde@sfr.fr Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30VFsEwC022122; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:14 +0100 (CET) Received: (from tlaronde@localhost) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.14.9/Submit) id 30VFsEPs020359; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:14 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: cauchy.polynum.local: tlaronde set sender to thierry.laronde@sfr.fr using -f Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:54:14 +0100 From: "tlaronde@polynum.com" To: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Le Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 03:43:43PM +0000, Michael D Kinney a =E9crit : > Your resync introduced a merge commit: >=20 > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/3969/commits >=20 > We do not allow merge commits and only allow linear history. >=20 > Please rebase and resubmit. OK. Thanks for the answer! T. Laronde >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: 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 Patch= Check > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > So some questions: > >=20 > > 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? > >=20 > > 2) Is it known that this procedure (merging and re-trigerring) leads to > > a failure of PatchCheck for whatever reason? > >=20 > > 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... > >=20 > > -- > > Thierry Laronde > > http://www.kergis.com/ > > http://kertex.kergis.com/ > > Key fingerprint =3D 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint =3D 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C