Commit messages and the move to git

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

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.