This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Commit messages and the move to git


On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool <
segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > PR target/92140: clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb
> > > PR fortran/91926: assumed rank optional
> > > PR tree-optimization/91532: [SVE] Redundant predicated store in
> gcc.target/aarch64/fmla_2.c
> > > PR tree-optimization/92161: ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at
> tree-vect-stmts.c:1687
> > > PR tree-optimization/92162: ICE in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction,
> at tree-vect-loop.c:4252
> > > PR c++/92015: internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_array_reference, at
> cp/constexpr.c:2568
> > > PR tree-optimization/92173: ICE in optab_for_tree_code, at
> optabs-tree.c:81
> > > PR tree-optimization/92173: ICE in optab_for_tree_code, at
> optabs-tree.c:81
> > > PR fortran/92174: runtime error: index 15 out of bounds for type
> 'gfc_expr *[15]
> > >
> > > Most of these aren't helpful at all, and none of these are good commit
> > > summaries.  The PR92173 one actually has identical commit messages btw,
> > > huh.  Ah, the second one (r277288) has the wrong changelog, but in the
> > > actual changelog file as well, not something any tool could fix up (or
> > > have we reached the singularity?)
> >
> > Identical commits are normally from where the same commit is made to
> > multiple branches.  It's not uncommon to see this when bugs are fixed.
>
> This is an actual mistake.  The commits are not identical at all, just
> the commit messages are (and the changelog entries, too).  Not something
> that happens to ften, but of course I hit it in the first random thing I
> pick :-)
>
> > Ultimately the question here is whether something like the above is more
> > or less useful than what we have today, which is summary lines of the
> form:
> >
> > <date> <user> <email>
>
> I already said I would prefer things like
>   Patch related to PR323
> as the patch subject lines.  No one argues that the current state of
> affairs is good.  I argue that replacing this with often wrong and
> irrelevant information isn't the best we can do.
>

How about using the first line that isn't a ChangeLog date/author line,
without trying to rewrite/augment it?

Jason


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]