Re: A small procedural request
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:22:08 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote: > On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > > Hi. > > > > +1. But have one suggestion for format. > > Something like > > > > Broken by: rXXX > > 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 rXX: Comments", it can be > > > > FIX rXX: 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 rXX rYY rZZ: Comments for multiple individuals > > FIX rXX-rYY: Comments for massive continuous range > > > > would be better. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800 > > Julian Elischer 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > >> > >> > > > > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > -- Tomoaki AOKI ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: A small procedural request
On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: Hi. +1. But have one suggestion for format. Something like Broken by: rXXX 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. would be better for scripts already handling "MFC after: " or "X-MFC-With: " etc. to support this. If put on the top with "MFC rXX: Comments", it can be FIX rXX: 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.. 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. or for multiple revisions, FIX rXX rYY rZZ: Comments for multiple individuals FIX rXX-rYY: Comments for massive continuous range would be better. Regards. On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800 Julian Elischer 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: A small procedural request
Hi. +1. But have one suggestion for format. Something like Broken by: rXXX Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown) and optionally Broken by: No (To emphasize it's NOT a bugfix.) would be better for scripts already handling "MFC after: " or "X-MFC-With: " etc. to support this. If put on the top with "MFC rXX: Comments", it can be FIX rXX: Comments or for multiple revisions, FIX rXX rYY rZZ: Comments for multiple individuals FIX rXX-rYY: Comments for massive continuous range would be better. Regards. On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800 Julian Elischer 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > -- Tomoaki AOKI ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
A small procedural request
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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
