Flaw in our process for dealing with trivial changes

Dmitry Belyavsky beldmit at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 09:29:28 UTC 2019

Dear Matt,

- the contributor agreed to sign the CLA and
- there was a mark that CLA is signed and
- all the necessary approves were present
I decided that there is no problem to merge.

BTW, I am not sure the PR was trivial enough.

Anyway, the responsibility was mine, not the git one :)

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 PM Matt Caswell <matt at openssl.org> 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

SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20191212/add6c100/attachment.html>

More information about the openssl-project mailing list