From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94126 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2020 16:25:21 -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 93444 invoked by uid 89); 6 Feb 2020 16:24:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:24:51 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581006282; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5iAicCt+wDa6+UlmOQc/EHGj5cJYSMDiWM2KkHo71JI=; b=cwkKctOyWIa63bBWZbs4ZOjI4YiudfYctN9ajB9r65pomc3MY5Brkgq9rektWhY4SWOQ+s x/uJVq5qZBkFVyFOITqjIVh10gkl5AF+Dbw4WPVbV9nbA9erzG7hppF6/ug4zzyT6K2g3N CxSDIvBkfCfaGXPBpx5GY55O3+YlE8k= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-366-EPrbcZYGMBO8O0kUam3FTA-1; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 11:24:38 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1CF1800D42; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD115790D8; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 016GOXTj013255; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:24:34 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 016GOVid013254; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:24:31 +0100 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:25:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Jeff Law , Richard Sandiford , "H.J. Lu" , paul@mad-scientist.net, GCC Development Subject: Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry Message-ID: <20200206162431.GM17695@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20200124214533.GB17695@tucnak> <6bc259050138912ea9b973ca4f43df72cb1bb7d8.camel@redhat.com> <20200205211801.GV22482@gate.crashing.org> <7743417118d2067cf0e9e1b840564f9f2d5e72dc.camel@redhat.com> <20200206145640.GK17695@tucnak> <20200206161754.GE22482@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200206161754.GE22482@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00071.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:17:54AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > We would need to agree how do we express stuff going into different for= mer > > ChangeLog files, whether we require gcc/cp/ etc. prefixes before the li= nes, > > or say require empty line for different former ChangeLog files and let = the > > extraction script figure it out from the changed files in the commit, e= tc. >=20 > The latter seems error-prone, but maybe I worry too much :-) Depends on how good the scripts are. The commit hook could figure out cases which are non-ambiguous and the extraction script would handle those and which cases are ambiguous and reject those. >=20 > > We could have a rule that say New test. entries for newly added files > > in */testsuite/* would be optional and let the generating script add th= ose > > (but say require entries if existing tests have been changed). >=20 > How much work does that safe? Some people don't like ChangeLog entries for testsuite additions (not me) and in the official guidelines those are optional ATM I think. Allowing them to be implicitly added for new testsuite files would hopefully satisfy those, while allowing people who want to be more explicit (New test. not being what they want to see for some reason e.g.) do so. Jakub