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 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> 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>"},
>     ....
>
> 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.

Thanks. I'm working through the first 100 lines in the file then.

If nobody else starts, I'll take the next 100, and so on.


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