Re: Commit messages and the move to git

[Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> 
> > I've attached a sample from the start of the fixed list - the full list is far
> > too big to post to give a flavour of how the script currently works.  Note
> > that annotations of the form [checkme: ....] in the summary are for diagnostic
> > purposes.  These are where heuristics suggest that there's a higher than
> > normal chance that the PR number is incorrect and that manual auditing is
> > recommended.  Such annotations would not be appropriate in the final
> > conversion.
> 
> Concretely, here is the current list of 664 checkme: annotations where 
> something was suspicious about the PR number (either component mismatch or 
> resolved as INVALID).  Would some people like to volunteer to pick up 
> sections of this list and, for their section, produce a list of SVN 
> revisions (at the end of the checkme line) for which the PR number appears 
> to be correct, and a list of mappings from SVN revision to correct PR 
> number when the PR number appears to be wrong?  For any that don't get 
> reviewed like that we can easily make the script, for the final 
> conversion, decline to add a new summary line for any commit where the PR 
> number is suspicious.

Here's a slightly shorter version with 644 checkme: annotations, after 
adding a few more component aliases to the script (e.g., no longer 
considering it suspicious if the log message says PR g++/something and 
that PR is in the component that's actually called c++).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Attachment: tocheck.txt
Description: Text document