Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
CQ should reject changes with no files (only commit message) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionEg: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/10335/ Is there a benefit to landing these changes? Majority (all?) of them are created accidentally. Should the CQ be rejecting these patches? because landing them causes unnecessary trybot churn. This was not an issue in Rietveld because there was no "Commit message".
,
Mar 29 2017
I do not know if there is a bug on file but Robbie is aware of the issue. Robbie, is there an open bug for this?
,
Mar 30 2017
Are you sure CQ landed the patch with just description change? I suspect the CL was fine, but it was a dup of another cl that landed, And Gerrit rebase strategy "noticed" that and rebased cl into just commit message. If so, there isn't much CQ can do about it. However, iirc there was related cl by Then to deal with cases when tree hash is the same after rebase.
,
Jul 21 2017
,
Jan 3 2018
Removing Milestone-Afterglow, as it has ceased to have meaning. More refined milestones may be added back in the near future.
,
Jan 5 2018
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by aga...@chromium.org
, Mar 29 2017Status: Available (was: Untriaged)