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 19/12/2019 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/12/2019 09:27, Jonathan Wakely 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)


Best of all would be a pull request on https://gitlab.com/esr/gcc-conversion/tree/master to update bugdb.py directly.

Second best would be something like

whitelist:

"<svn-revnumber>", "<svn-revnumber>",

etc, where svn-revnumber is the revision number in svn as reported in the checkme above but without the leading 'r'

and

Change:

    "<svn-revnumber>": {"PR": "<correct-bugid>"},
    ....


There are two other actions that can be applied to commits, in the change section:

     "<svn-revnumber>" {"ignore": True},

(case is important: True, not true or TRUE), will force the script to ignore that commit entirely; you may end up with a pretty meaningless summary line, so this should be used sparingly if at all.

and

     "<svn-revnumber>" {"summary": "<new summary>"},

will use the specificed <new summary> as the summary line.

Given the number of commits, we can't rewrite everything, but if you see a summary that looks particularly wrong, we can insert something else using this override.

R.

where svn-revnumber is as before, and <correct-bugid> is the the PR number that should have been used.

The above can then be pasted quickly into the script to update it.

R.


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