Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:39:20 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A small procedural request Message-ID: <20180222213920.c8cf9bf57e76b5e36632c51a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <7c133301-deb6-e747-3932-1c4cf67bced9@freebsd.org> References: <1ec9ccb4-0f0e-e525-4ce8-71d9d34172ae@freebsd.org> <20180221201405.4c0b1262e2f239616120869a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <7c133301-deb6-e747-3932-1c4cf67bced9@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:22:08 +0800 Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > > Hi. > > > > +1. But have one suggestion for format. > > Something like > > > > Broken by: rXXXXXXX > > Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown) > > > > and optionally > > > > Broken by: No (To emphasize it's NOT a bugfix.) > > I think that is probably too much, but the〓〓〓〓〓〓〓 Broken by:〓 would be > good. Maybe not all committers would add this info. But examples should be useful for who wants to write. ;-) > > would be better for scripts already handling "MFC after: " or > > "X-MFC-With: " etc. to support this. > > > > If put on the top with "MFC rXXXXXX: Comments", it can be > > > > FIX rXXXXXX: Comments > > possibly.. > that Would allow some sort of collection of the data to〓 suggest good > places to > retrospectively base your head following (but not too closely) branches. > but may be more work that people are willing to do.. I guess so, too. It's useful, but not a creative work. I think less is better than nothing. > For myself, just a hint of where the bug was introduced would help a lot. > further more if you have a branch/product based at some point in time, > this would help > you to know when a patch needs to be cherry picked back to your code. Yes. I 100% agree. BTW, "X-MFC-With: " is sometimes used for the same purpose, but not always. (Used for bugfixes for new feature, and related new features.) > > > > or for multiple revisions, > > > > FIX rXXXXXX rYYYYYY rZZZZZZ: Comments for multiple individuals > > FIX rXXXXXX-rYYYYYY: Comments for massive continuous range > > > > would be better. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800 > > Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi,〓 I have a very small request to those committing into head. > >> > >> If you commit a fix, then if it is possible to easily do so, can you > >> give the revision number in which the regression was introduced? > >> > >> like "this was〓 broken in r329xxx" > >> > >> this allows people who are looking for specific problems to say "Ok > >> that bug was introduced after the snapshot I'm working on and can't be > >> my issue". > >> > >> (we are not always working on the very tip). > >> > >> > >> thanks > >> > >> Julian > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180222213920.c8cf9bf57e76b5e36632c51a>