Re: where is PRnnnn required again?

[Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>]

On 7/7/21 2:42 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, 17:39 Martin Sebor, <msebor@gmail.com 
> <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 7/6/21 4:09 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021, 22:45 Martin Sebor via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>     <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
>      > <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     On 7/6/21 3:36 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>      >      > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 03:20:26PM -0600, Martin Sebor via
>     Gcc wrote:
>      >      >> I came away from the recent discussion of ChangeLogs
>     requirements
>      >      >> with the impression that the PRnnnn bit should be in the
>     subject
>      >      >> (first) line and also above the ChangeLog part but
>     doesn't need
>      >      >> to be repeated again in the ChangeLog entries.  But my commit
>      >      >> below was rejected last Friday with the subsequent
>     error.  Adding
>      >      >> PR middle-end/98871 to the ChangeLog entry let me push
>     the change:
>      >      >>
>      >      >>
>     https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6feb628a706e86eb3f303aff388c74bdb29e7381
>      >      >>
>      >      >> I just had the same error happen now, again with what
>     seems like
>      >      >> a valid commit message.  Did I misunderstand something or has
>      >      >> something changed recently?
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Martin
>      >      >>
>      >      >> commit 8a6d08bb49c2b9585c2a2adbb3121f6d9347b780 (HEAD ->
>     master)
>      >      >> Author: Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com
>     <mailto:msebor@redhat.com> <mailto:msebor@redhat.com
>     <mailto:msebor@redhat.com>>>
>      >      >> Date:   Fri Jul 2 16:16:31 2021 -0600
>      >      >>
>      >      >>      Improve warning suppression for inlined functions
>     [PR98512].
>      >      >>
>      >      >>      Resolves:
>      >      >>      PR middle-end/98871 - Cannot silence
>     -Wmaybe-uninitialized at
>      >      >> declaration si
>      >      >> te
>      >      >>      PR middle-end/98512 - #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
>      >     ineffective in
>      >      >> conjunct
>      >      >> ion with alias attribute
>      >      >
>      >      > This should be just
>      >      >
>      >      >       PR middle-end/98871
>      >      >       PR middle-end/98512
>      >      >
>      >      > , no?
>      >
>      >     Does it matter if there's text after the PR ...?
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > Yes. With extra text the whole line is just treated as arbitrary
>     text,
>      > not a "PR component/nnnn" string. So with the extra text it won't be
>      > added to the ChangeLog file, and won't match the PR in the
>     subject line.
>      >
>      >        I managed to push
>      >
>      > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-July/350316.html
>      >
>      >     that uses the same style earlier today
>      >
>      >
>      > But will it add the PR numbers to the ChangeLog? I think the
>     answer is
>      > no (in which case you could edit the ChangeLog tomorrow if you
>     want them
>      > to be in there).
> 
>     It updated Bugzilla but it didn't add the PR numbers to the ChangeLog
>     entries.  I still don't (obviously) understand the rules the hook uses
>     for what to update or the rationale for them.  It seems as though
>     the PR in the subject is used to update only Bugzilla but not also
>     update the ChangeLogs (why not?) 
> 
> 
> Because they are two completely separate processes. Verifying the commit 
> message format is done by a git hook, and you can run exactly the same 
> checks locally before pushing a commit.
> 
> Updating bugzilla is done by a separate and different process, which has 
> been in place for years (decades?) before we switched to git.

I don't mean to turn this into a contentious back and forth but
"because this is how it works" or "because this is how it's been
done for eons" aren't a rationale, at least not a satisfying one.

Do you not agree that it would be better to be able to mention
the PR or PRs just once and have all our scripts work with it?
If you do then is something keeping us from making those changes?

Martin

PS To be clear, I'm suggesting that all these work the same and
update Bugzilla as well as ChangeLogs, both with and without
a space after PR and both with and without a component name after
the PR.

1) PR only in title.
   Fix foobar [PR12345]

   gcc/ChangeLog:
     * foo.c (bar): Fix it.

2) PR (with or without additional text after it) after title and
    before ChageLogs.
   Fix foobar.

   PR12345 - foobar broken

   gcc/ChangeLog:
     * foo.c (bar): Fix it.

3) PR only in ChangeLogs.
   Fix foobar.

   gcc/ChangeLog:
     PR 12345
     * foo.c (bar): Fix it.

> 
> 
>     The PR component/nnnn part that's
>     supposed to come before the ChangeLog is used to update ChangeLog
>     entries but seems to be ignored if it's followed by any text (why?)
> 
> 
> See Jakub's reply.
> 
>