Hello Guinevere,
Guinevere Larsen <blar...@redhat.com> writes: > I got 3 of these messages about a patch I have upstream, which seems > excessive. > I also just managed to grab an aarch64 box and test it and got no errors, so > I'd > appreciate someone double checking that those werent 3 false positives please. I'm sorry for the false positive and the extra messages (Could you forward them (with full headers) to me, please? Perhaps we can prevent sending identical messages in the case of an unexpected mishap). And thank you for testing on an aarch64 box that the patches are indeed ok. What happened here is that the In-Reply-To: fields of the v2 messages all point to the v1 patch. IIUC, normally the v2 cover letter would point to the v1 patch, and patches 1 and 2 would point to the v2 cover letter. This confused patchwork's series detection and so our CI applied the v2 2/2 patch on top of the v1 patch instead of the v2 1/2 patch. This of course caused a build failure. Not sure how to avoid this problem in the future. Perhaps we could add an heuristic to detect this case and skip precommit testing? The heuristic could be something like looking for a "[v<n> x/y]" prefix and checking whether it is consistent among all patches in the series. Thank you for bring this to our attention! -- Thiago _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
