On 06/24/21 00:07, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
I understand your point.
I am trying to balance the ease of use for developers, reducing overhead for maintainers, and
prevent bad commits.
I think you are saying that you want to make sure a maintainer carefully reviews changes
across multiple PRs that are in the same area of code. The CI checks will of course make
sure the code builds and passes the basic boot tests, but those tests do not have full
coverage so an interaction issue between two PRs that pass build and boot but have
unintended behavior side effects are what require detailed manual review.
I am going to remove the auto-rebase by default and add a optional label that can
be set by a maintainer to enable auto-rebase. If a maintainer is confident that
a set of PRs being submitted at the same time with the 'push' label are independent,
then the maintainer can also set 'auto-rebase'. If they are not confident, then
they can send PRs one at a time with only 'push' label and manually rebase each
additional PR and review the manual rebase to make sure there are no unintended
Sounds great, thank you!
Any objections to this direction?
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; email@example.com; spbrogan@...; ardb@...
Cc: Peter Grehan <grehan@...>; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@...>; Justen, Jordan L
<jordan.l.justen@...>; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@...>; Rebecca Cran <rebecca@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] OvmfPkg/Bhyve: clean up TPM_ENABLE remnants
On 06/23/21 20:44, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
Indeed, my "desired" result at least would have been for mergify to
Thank you for the test case.
I created 2 PRs against edk2-codereview using your patches.
I made minor update to commit messages to pass patch check.
Found another issue with PatchCheck for the Mergify merge commit and
Mergify did process #18 and merged it in after passing all CI. Mergify
rebased #19 successfully and merged it after passing all CI. I do not
think this was your expected result.
reject the rebase.
I looked more closely at the patches you provided. They were notMore precisely, a contextual conflict *was* determined between the
overlapping in the lines of Readme.rst. This is why no merge conflict
patches, but that conflict was auto-resolved.
This is risky when done in an automated fashion. It is an extremely
convenient feature of git, when used interactively; that is, when the
auto-merge (automatic conflict resolution) is semantically verified by a
human. Git takes away the chore of conflict resolution, presents a
"likely good" end result, and a human only needs to *look* at the end
result, not *implement* it.
But that "human look" is exactly what's missing from mergify.
Basically what I'd like for mergify is to turn off automatic conflict
More or less, speaking in terms of the stand-alone "patch" utility
<https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/patch.1.html>, my preference is
to set the "fuzz factor" to zero.
One way a human reviews such context differences is with git-range-diff.
Continuing my previous example commands:
$ git range-diff --color master..b2 b1..b2-rebase
1: 02dc81e58bd6 ! 1: 2cf39d4b1790 world
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
A modern, feature-rich, cross-platform firmware development
environment for the UEFI and PI specifications from www.uefi.org.
This output shows that the "world" addition is the same (it is identical
between pre-rebase and post-rebase in the commit), but the context has
changed. During the rebase, the leading empty line of the context
disappeared, and a HELLO line in the middle of the leading context
This result may or may not be semantically correct; it needs a human
decision. What if the original purpose of the "world" patch author was
to say WORLD but only without HELLO? When they looked at the code, there
was no HELLO yet.
git-range-diff is very powerful, but reading its output takes some
getting used to. (Colorization with the "--color" option is basically
required for understanding; I can't reproduce it in this email, alas.)
I don't want to obsess about this forever, I just want us all to be
aware that this risk exists.
This case is not worrisome; when there is a clear conflict that cannot be auto-resolved, I'm not concerned.
I then created 2 new PRs that added text to the same line # in Readme.rst.
PR #21 passed all CI tests and was merged. Mergify then attempted to
rebase #22 and got a merge conflict and is still in the open state waiting
for the developer to manually handle the merge conflict.
My concern is the sneaky contextual conflict that *appears* auto-resolvable, but is semantically broken. Those things