A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 07:35:45PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200 > Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > > Hi Florian, all - > > > > First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches > > referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. > > > > Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit > > referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level > > of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit > > referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. > > > > Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think > > three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be > > still be okay. What do others think? > > > > BR, > > Jani. > > > > > > [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 > > Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is > worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 -> bug associations > and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to > a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. > > If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a > commit message, that probably means it really is an important > connection. > And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean > something too. > > Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted > because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every > attempt... > > As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly > about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the > level of indirection... what do you think? I think the multiple-indirection bug entries are ok, and could indeed be useful to stitch together the story of a bug (or help us remember to reopen a bug if we need to revert a patch). I guess drm/i915 hit a few more of those than other people since we're always citing commits in full (we paste --pretty=short into commit messages). And we also tend to cite a lot of commits, sometimes mentioning all relevant changes to the code in the past few years ;-) Together with our tendecy to track all bug reports in bugzilla that leads to the oddball useless commit entry in a bug. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 07:35:45PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200 Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote: Hi Florian, all - First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be still be okay. What do others think? BR, Jani. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 - bug associations and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a commit message, that probably means it really is an important connection. And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean something too. Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every attempt... As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the level of indirection... what do you think? I think the multiple-indirection bug entries are ok, and could indeed be useful to stitch together the story of a bug (or help us remember to reopen a bug if we need to revert a patch). I guess drm/i915 hit a few more of those than other people since we're always citing commits in full (we paste --pretty=short into commit messages). And we also tend to cite a lot of commits, sometimes mentioning all relevant changes to the code in the past few years ;-) Together with our tendecy to track all bug reports in bugzilla that leads to the oddball useless commit entry in a bug. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200 Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote: Hi Florian, all - First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be still be okay. What do others think? BR, Jani. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 - bug associations and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a commit message, that probably means it really is an important connection. And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean something too. Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every attempt... As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the level of indirection... what do you think? Regards, Flo p.s.: sorry for the late response, I'm having a bit of trouble with my mail setup at the moment and too much to do... ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200 Jani Nikula wrote: > > Hi Florian, all - > > First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches > referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. > > Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit > referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level > of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit > referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. > > Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think > three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be > still be okay. What do others think? > > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 -> bug associations and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a commit message, that probably means it really is an important connection. And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean something too. Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every attempt... As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the level of indirection... what do you think? Regards, Flo p.s.: sorry for the late response, I'm having a bit of trouble with my mail setup at the moment and too much to do...
A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
Hi Florian, all - First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be still be okay. What do others think? BR, Jani. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56
A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...
Hi Florian, all - First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be still be okay. What do others think? BR, Jani. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
