I agree that there is a possible flaw in the workflow. What’s saved us so far is that new contributors don’t generally include the "CLA: trivial" line or put it in the GitHub text.
Could we have a “trivial” tag that is added whenever the "CLA: trivial" line is present? Better would be to add it only if the submitter doesn’t have a CLA on file but either works. Pauli -- Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations Phone +61 7 3031 7217 Oracle Australia > On 12 Dec 2019, at 7:20 pm, Matt Caswell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I notice that PR 10594 (Add support for otherName:NAIRealm in output) > got merged yesterday: > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/10594 > > The commit description contained "CLA: trivial" and so the "hold: cla > required" label was not automatically applied to the PR. But the > discussion in the PR suggested a CLA should be submitted. But it got > merged anyway! Fortunately the CLA had already been processed - just not > noted in the PR. So, in this case, it makes no difference. > > I think this points to a possible flaw in our workflow for dealing with > trivial changes. Because the "CLA: trivial" header suppresses the "hold: > cla required" label and the git hooks don't complain when commits get > pushed with the "CLA: trivial" header and no CLA on file, it seems > possible to me that we could push commit all the way through the process > without the reviewers even realising that the author is claiming > triviality on the commit. > > Not sure what the solution to that is. > > Matt
