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 Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 09:27, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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++).
>
> Line 18: c++ SVN r116634, looks suspicious, but PR number is correct.
> Line 326: lto SVN r196613, PR number is correct
> Line 411: libstdc++ SVN r219147, PR number is correct
>
>
> How do you want the mapping from SVN revision to correct PR to be expressed?
>
> Line 19: the correct PR for fortran SVN r120056 is fortran/30238 (not 39238)
> Line 608: lto SVN r268728 should be PR 87089 (not 87809)
> Line 616: lto SVN r269799 should be PR 87089 (not 87809)

I can take a chunk of the file, but I'll wait until I know how to
present the results.


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