Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

git: do not include merges in the commit range #16

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 21, 2017
Merged

git: do not include merges in the commit range #16

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 21, 2017

Conversation

vbatts
Copy link
Owner

@vbatts vbatts commented Mar 21, 2017

Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts [email protected]

@vbatts
Copy link
Owner Author

vbatts commented Mar 21, 2017

passes

@vbatts vbatts merged commit 9b7297d into master Mar 21, 2017
@vbatts vbatts deleted the no-merges branch March 21, 2017 14:20
@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Mar 21, 2017 via email

@vbatts
Copy link
Owner Author

vbatts commented Mar 21, 2017

@wking if it works better, open a PR :-)

wking added a commit to wking/git-validation that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2017
Partially reverting ca82522 (git: do not include merges in the commit
range, 2017-03-21, vbatts#16).  I've kept the unrelated --no-pager addition
from that commit.

I think merges in the commit range should be checked against whatever
criteria the caller is asking for.  If the caller does not want to
check a machine-generated commit, they shouldn't include it in the
commit range.

And we already have special-cases for merges.  For example, we skip
DCO checks for merge commits.  I'd be happier without that special
case, because human-generated merge commits can still add novel code
(and therefore should have Signed-off-by), etc.  But I don't think we
want a blanket pass for merge commits.

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants