From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124466 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2019 17:11:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 124452 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2019 17:11:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:fb6aa5d, H*i:sk:fb6aa5d, H*MI:sk:fb6aa5d X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:11:21 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id xAIHBGCK017478; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:11:16 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id xAIHBF06017477; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:11:15 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:11:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, Jeff Law , GCC Development Subject: Re: Commit messages and the move to git Message-ID: <20191118171115.GI16031@gate.crashing.org> References: <20191107142727.GA72444@thyrsus.com> <20191109060151.GA82270@thyrsus.com> <78a57894-74f2-94d5-65a1-3ce2bd934f32@arm.com> <20191118155549.GH16031@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 Hi Richard, On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:48:03PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 18/11/2019 15:55, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >That immediately shows some of the shortcomings of this approach: the > >subject line is much too long, but more importantly, it doesn't make > >much sense: it is not what the patch does, it is the description of a > >bug that is related in some way to this patch. It is not uncommon for > >a commit to not fix the problem mentioned in the bug report (if it *is* > >a problem!), or not fix it completely. > > > >Then again, changing all such subject lines to read "patch" could also > >already be considered an improvement. > > Well the real question is whether such a summary is worse than the > current situation of just printing the author in the wrong field. I > personally don't think it is. I think that non-obviously-wrong-but-still-wrong info is not something we should introduce. And, I think this will happen a *lot*. Maybe you can just put in artificial subjects like "Patch related to PR12345" or the like? That is correct, displays a lot better, and is at least as useful (imo). > There are about 560 commits where the code highlights that the data > might be suspect (usually a category mismatch). What about commits that mention multiple PRs? What do you do for those? (Are there as many of those as I think, anyway?) With normally very short subjects you could put all of them in there :-) Segher