From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4018D383B401 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:13:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4018D383B401 Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-518-afYWUAfPPpadFY1TFzaNFA-1; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 05:13:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: afYWUAfPPpadFY1TFzaNFA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id k11-20020adfe3cb0000b0290115c29d165cso2320160wrm.14 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 02:13:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1fOWYYlom/JYf6oo0+R7IVbcH2u3+4bNxt/ApGbrEbI=; b=f+o4CzgmkR8KFJOl1hMz5ztYK0qvdU30EwsIXuUUEjTPdzdjWg1AnQ0r45zZT1MXbM okEB/Gw0gWXxxXSLf9PZdVLUNSsgn64tlGuuVhHhkS+W9sEMVhs2b50OUaeHtxcWHENk M+eAAnTtG5m+GwqwTiHDmcj8bGGUicCdOu8FCmRu3msHUHlKTgyUm8/lQcU0FUvmw6Ek CweNi0SIXfmaDzsLAlXO1RyZhMu4ZxJZL4ODhjj7Ne/vuq6LsYm/o1pPZPsmHqmmFL1n KCbbi8LHL7FINaGc9Wws4Cw5ohsGLdDlO4UrxxBXhfTdO7EtQC/ui3GiItyxIoQFl5i0 k2AA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532W5PEJwchfqAX2GPw53Z4dtn1yOfhMh6T5dYcHWu3HqAj3TXc3 rWVzHBJK19dWvqa+XbvXgYk1EFJRINHelUf55n+VC6mj7JrlmPJcE9L26gLiHTUQC986hG/7LXc B8CQkT9TD5vtYD98zNCSHHDg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:cb:: with SMTP id q11mr2903455wrx.13.1623402828980; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 02:13:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvGfxi1Z16H+rMnpFqef7yD/T+If22SgUw9Y37sUSM7pkaZBaXqZI+7bPbjv83oKYvmNRU1Q76fQTmIEnVMJE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:cb:: with SMTP id q11mr2903439wrx.13.1623402828840; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 02:13:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210610100851.GD7746@tucnak> <1230cb99-ed83-3e4e-8362-94f03ee021bc@gmail.com> <3228435b-aba0-6157-3266-c0f025822829@gmail.com> <5f89ddc0-aed4-2c20-0979-dfafb29046ee@gmail.com> <20210610173005.GI7746@tucnak> <20210610190941.GJ7746@tucnak> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:13:37 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog To: Martin Sebor Cc: Jakub Jelinek , gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:13:53 -0000 On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 22:16, Martin Sebor wrote: > I don't see why the script users should be subjected to this tedium > when it can be done in the script itself with (presumably) only > a little more effort. The proposed change is, IMO, a step in > the wrong direction. I don't see why "improve the mklog.py script to automatically follow the policy" is in conflict with "enforce the policy". If the script can be improved to do the right thing automatically when you commit (it's not clear if it can be improved that way, but let's say it can) then what's the problem with enforcing it when you push the commit to the server? What are you being "subjected to"? If it's automated, what is "this tedium"? You've already followed the policy, why do you care if there are checks to make sure that everybody follows the policy, including the people not using the script and writing the entire commit msg by hand? I'm not saying we are going to enforce every part of the policy (because the policy isn't even clear right now), but if we wanted to do it later, I don't understand your objection.