Re: Commit messages and the move to git

["Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>]

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.