From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:32:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16f70de7-8324-e249-dbd8-605022066d12@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210617172129.GH7746@tucnak>
On 17/06/2021 18:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 05:12:52PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote:
>>
>>> It seems a bit dangerous to me to rely on just extracting PR numbers from
>>> tests. What if the patch is just adjusting a test to make it compatible with
>>> the remainder of the change?
>>
>> Also, that a test is added for a PR, or a commit is relevant to a PR, is a
>> weaker property than the commit *resolving* the PR. The fact that a
>> commit *resolves* a PR (allows it to be marked as resolved, or the
>> regression markers to be updated if it's resolved in master but the fix
>> still needs to be backported) needs to be explicitly affirmed by the
>> committer (possibly based on a question asked by a script) rather than
>> assumed by default based on the PR being mentioned somewhere.
>
> mklog as is doesn't fill in the details (descriptions of the changes
> to each function etc.), nor is realiable in many cases, and with Jason's
> recent change just fills in the first and last part of the first line
> but not the important middle part.
> So, the developer has to hand edit it anyway and that I'd consider also
> be the right time when the verification whether the PR being mentioned
> is the right one etc. So no need to add a question asked by the script
> at another point.
>
> Jakub
>
That misses my point. If we use a tool to help doing this we can make
the tool also scrape the entry out of bugzilla and print the summary
line as a stronger visual check that the number has been typed
correctly. We get many bug attributions wrong simply because two digits
have been transposed: visually checking the summary line is a far
stronger check that the correct number has been entered.
R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4c1114a7-2377-99e4-d451-1a086857e991@linux.ibm.com>
2021-06-10 5:22 ` Xionghu Luo
2021-06-10 6:17 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-10 6:25 ` Xionghu Luo
2021-06-10 8:07 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-10 6:35 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-10 8:07 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-10 9:44 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 10:01 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 10:08 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-10 10:40 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 14:55 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-10 15:54 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-10 16:05 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 15:56 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 17:06 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-10 17:20 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-10 17:30 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-10 18:55 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-10 19:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-10 21:16 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-10 21:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-10 21:56 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-11 9:13 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-11 17:02 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-11 17:05 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-11 17:32 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-11 18:01 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-11 18:14 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-16 0:56 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2021-06-16 2:03 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-16 3:42 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-16 14:31 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-16 20:49 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-16 21:45 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-16 23:45 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-17 0:17 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-17 0:40 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-17 1:01 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-17 1:46 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-17 10:18 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-17 14:55 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-17 15:11 ` Michael Matz
2021-06-17 15:33 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-17 16:31 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-17 16:32 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-17 18:00 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-17 10:08 ` Richard Earnshaw
2021-06-17 17:12 ` Joseph Myers
2021-06-17 17:21 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-17 17:21 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-18 9:32 ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
2021-06-18 11:05 ` [Patch] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling (was: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog) Tobias Burnus
2021-06-18 11:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-18 11:24 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-18 11:25 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-18 11:40 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-21 7:28 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-18 16:40 ` [Patch] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling Martin Sebor
2021-06-18 14:41 ` [Patch] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling (was: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog) Jason Merrill
2021-06-18 16:47 ` [Patch] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling Martin Sebor
2021-06-18 16:59 ` Iain Sandoe
2021-06-21 6:42 ` [Patch] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling (was: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog) Tobias Burnus
2021-06-21 7:26 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-21 8:02 ` Iain Sandoe
2021-06-21 7:54 ` [Patch, v2] contrib/mklog.py: Improve PR handling (was: " Tobias Burnus
2021-06-21 8:09 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-21 8:37 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-21 12:53 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-21 13:26 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-22 7:30 ` [RFC][PATCH] contrib: add git-commit-mklog wrapper Martin Liška
2021-06-22 8:23 ` Tobias Burnus
2021-06-22 8:31 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-22 18:40 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-23 7:40 ` Martin Liška
2021-06-16 13:46 ` git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-16 17:44 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2021-06-11 9:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-11 9:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-11 15:43 ` Joseph Myers
2021-06-11 17:02 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 11:51 ` [Patch] contrig/gcc-changelog: Check that PR in subject in in changelog (was:: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog) Tobias Burnus
2021-06-10 11:54 ` [Patch] contrig/gcc-changelog: Check that PR in subject in in changelog Florian Weimer
2021-06-10 12:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-06-10 9:41 ` git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=16f70de7-8324-e249-dbd8-605022066d12@foss.arm.com \
--to=richard.earnshaw@foss.arm.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).