Re: Commit messages and the move to git

["Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>]

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.

My apologies that I'm not going to be able to contribute as much to this 
as I'd hoped; events have conspired against me this week and today is 
probably pretty much the only day that I'll be at a computer this side 
of the new year.

R.