[libcamera-devel] [PATCH] Fix incorrect method in cameradata docs

[Umang Jain]

Hi Chris,

On 6/25/20 2:03 PM, Chris Chinchilla wrote:
> Yes, I resent it as people told me it was missing tags :)
>
> So it’s missing more tags now? I admit, I didn’t see the reviewed by 
> tags appear anywhere.
Did you see commit history in libcamera git repo?

$ cd /path/to/libcamera/repo
$ git log

See couple of commits and their messages:

They will have:
* Signed-off-by tag - This generally belongs to the author of the commit
* Reviewed-by tag - This is to denote who reviewed your commit.

Obviously, v1 won't have any Reviewed-by tags. So, when from submit next 
version (v2, v3...)
You need to append the commit message, if you have got "Reviewed-by" tag 
by the reviewer
when they reviewed our patches on the mailing list.

You need 2-or-more "Reviewed-by tags" to get your patches merged.
This is not a hard rule but that's  what I have been told :)

>
> So to clarify, to get this right, I need to resend again with a v3 and 
> add reviewed by tags?
Yes, apart from the fixes pointed out in the last review (if any), you 
need to send a next version (v3),
making sure it has signoff and reviewed-by tags included from the 
review. This is generic workflow.

Since, I checked, this particular patch acutally fixes an old commit, 
you need to specify: "Fixes: "
tag as mentioned in the previous review. So in total, you will have 1 
"Fixes: " tag, 1 Signoff tag
and 2 Reviewed-by tags (mine and Laurent's).

Hope I have made this clear. Please feel free to reach out if you have 
any more questions.
>
> Chris
> On 23 Jun 2020, 19:38 +0200, Umang Jain <email at uajain.com>, wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Did you re-send this patch by mistake? It's identical with the patch
>> you sent on 6/15/2020.
>>
>> When you re-send the patch, you need to also mention that the patch is
>> the second (or third, fourth ...) iteration of the initial patch.
>> You can do that by adding "-v2" to "git format-patch ..." commandline
>> to denote that it's the second version of that patch.
>>
>> Also, since you got Reviewed-by tags by me and Laurent, you need to 
>> collect
>> them too and add it to your commit message while re-sending them for the
>> second round of review.
>>
>> On 6/23/20 4:27 PM, chris at gregariousmammal.com wrote:
>>> From: Chris Chinchilla <chris at gregariousmammal.com>
>>>
>>> Fix incorrect method in cameradata docs
>>>
>>> Fixes: b581b9576abd ("libcamera: pipeline_handler: Make 
>>> pipeline-specific data mandatory")
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Chinchilla <chris at gregariousmammal.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp 
>>> b/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> index 14dfba0..15cdc17 100644
>>> --- a/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> +++ b/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ LOG_DEFINE_CATEGORY(Pipeline)
>>> *
>>> * Pipeline handlers are expected to extend this base class with platform
>>> * specific implementation, associate instances of the derived classes
>>> - * using the setCameraData() method, and access them at a later time
>>> + * using the registerCamera() method, and access them at a later time
>>> * with cameraData().
>>> */
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/attachments/20200625/a7952eb4/attachment.htm>