Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:50:08 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r289664 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <CAPyFy2AwSbP6uVLN5eCuZqqRsDXPfcw7q63nj9rStqVsuhXMtw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5626A748.5040101@FreeBSD.org> References: <201510202038.t9KKcKW5064373@repo.freebsd.org> <5626A748.5040101@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 October 2015 at 16:42, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I really think we should just do a full revert and recommit in these > cases, and not even a forced commit. Neither this commit or a forced > commit will show in 'svn blame' or even during a bisect. It really just > becomes luck to find the right commit noting the message. IMHO 'svn > blame' is more important than some extra churn in 'svn log' or email. It > does add more steps in 'svn blame' but it ends up giving the right > message more obviously. > > I'm not asking to redo this commit now, but I think we should have a > standard of just recommitting to fix mistakes. This is the approach taken by LLVM and it works well there. You're right that it introduces a bit of churn but I think it's worth the cost.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2AwSbP6uVLN5eCuZqqRsDXPfcw7q63nj9rStqVsuhXMtw>