From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1E3384782B for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:16:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9B1E3384782B Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id r17so3626025oic.7 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ws11z1r7OxjdadylFgX+PJqiTeV03CzYWFBkG31XhFw=; b=oVVyhK03F+VhGZ5aIEXWmJdrxCcr3DGdhVYAS8hURRzsh/PiUTLOElyeKKoxWbIq/6 CE/y70fcQ32kGxLEXgMHIsc9Hi/4yGgSgwj+jU3EdjwZZvRtp1dI/1kKiLRnagFk0xlz 98+olD5wkPlRTJJ153B4lOWvjAkPpbE/6cx++bCNdP+/NNd1hKlIjNfi0x7tefjzyEUg Bb0gk5L1PecbyCvg26yEia+cIBwaPC20D6r1/LDkkbvn5pfhdSc1Tbh/m5K5ylWRfCGD cqGoAQkKPdvMqLV8JqRVQ5CodNTmYeMGZpn/9l7SSVvASFGjxMlo5akpADRDjk7cpBxE LqFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531j0jVtwKCgLtN/GkdcSPimUjEPUBSAA5dVc/uXIyV10zmt48Z1 +3jCdsp1y2DP8rCGoAFY4ZTdXdpjtqo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxcTRAVAw2hQkH3yW06F3M8sYoN5g8mlrU2ElWjkKfyV9ELrB8QaaEXVGf8shpscA4h2owfA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1154:: with SMTP id u20mr295051oiu.35.1623359804779; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.41] (97-118-122-241.hlrn.qwest.net. [97.118.122.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f25sm846918oto.26.2021.06.10.14.16.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: git gcc-commit-mklog doesn't extract PR number to ChangeLog To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jonathan Wakely , gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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> From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:16:43 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210610190941.GJ7746@tucnak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:16:47 -0000 On 6/10/21 1:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:55:43PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: >> Instead of rejecting commits that don't mention all the same PRs on >> the first line of the commit as in the ChangeLog entries it seems >> that the Git commit script could extract the PRnnnn references from >> just the ChangeLong entries (if we wanted to constrain it that way >> to avoid the unrelated references and append each to the end of >> the $git_description if it isn't already there. I thought it >> already did that (and more). > > Just look at the start of this thread. Some people put > the [PRnnnnn] only in the first line of the commit. And that is > what these changes want to diagnose, that is an error and results > in bugzilla not being updated. That's Tobias' proposal, yes: One options would be to require a 'PR /' line if there is 'PRnnnnn+' in the commit title, rejecting the commit otherwise. I can't think of why rejecting such commits is preferable to having the script fix them up by copying the PRnnnn strings from the ChangeLog entries in the commit message into the first line. So that's my counterproposal: make the script do the tedious work for us. > The current changes won't do the other direction, i.e. if there > is a PR line in the ChangeLog entry complain about [PRnnnnn] missing > in the first line. The fact that it isn't required by the script doesn't > mean people shouldn't do it, but if they occassionally forget, it is not > that bad as not mentioning it in ChangeLog. 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. Martin