Flaw in our process for dealing with trivial changes

[Dr Paul Dale]

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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20191212/e0f71ba5/attachment.html>