Re: Commit messages and the move to git

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 12:42, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2019 12:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 12:33, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> > <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/12/2019 12:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> >>> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. I'm working through the first 100 lines in the file then.
> >>>
> >>> If nobody else starts, I'll take the next 100, and so on.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Great, thanks.
> >>
> >> It might be useful if someone could start from the other end.  The later
> >> numbers will be most recent and the ones which are more likely to be
> >> relevant to users today.
> >
> > And less likely to refer to egcs bugs and/or egcs patches from 1997
> > which are harder to find in our mailing lists archives!
> >
> > Since nobody else has volunteered yet, maybe I should just start at
> > the end instead. All I've managed so far is to decide that line 1 is
> > too hard to track down and should get a {"summary":"..."} fixup
> > instead.
> >
> > So I'll start with the LAST 100 lines.
> >
>
> Another approach might be to do a quick triage and cull out (whitelist)
> the ones that are "obviously correct".  You can often tell by reading
> the summary itself that it really does correspond to the commit.  Then
> we'd be left with a shorter list where things really do need further
> digging.  In the worst case we can just do as Joseph suggests and
> implement a policy ignore for those in the final conversion (I already
> do that for PR numbers <1000 since there was more than one gnats DB at
> that time and the PR numbers just do not line up reliably enough).
>
> R.

It might be reasonable to assume rtl-optimization and
tree-optimization are aliases, and not treat it as suspicious if those
two appear mixed up. And anything where bugzilla has component debug
or lto and the commit is tree-optimization is probably OK too (that
seems to be the case for several so far).

We might want to change the component in bugzilla for these:

92324 from c to tree-optimization
91763 from go to lto
91772 from lto to debug
91137 from rtl-optimization to tree-optimization
91445 from c++ to tree-optimization
90577 from middle-end to fortran
90716 from debug to tree-optimization
90273 from debug to tree-optimization
90194 from debug to middle-end