Phabric IDs / URLs in commits

[Bryan Drewery]

On 7/11/2014 11:38 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, July 11, 2014 12:16:26 pm John Baldwin wrote:
>> Author: jhb
>> Date: Fri Jul 11 16:16:26 2014
>> New Revision: 268531
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/268531
>>
>> Log:
>>   Fix some edge cases with rewinddir():
>>   - In the unionfs case, opendir() and fdopendir() read the directory's full
>>     contents and cache it.  This cache is not refreshed when rewinddir() is
>>     called, so rewinddir() will not notice updates to a directory.  Fix this
>>     by splitting the code to fetch a directory's contents out of
>>     __opendir_common() into a new _filldir() function and call this from
>>     rewinddir() when operating on a unionfs directory.
>>   - If rewinddir() is called on a directory opened with fdopendir() before
>>     any directory entries are fetched, rewinddir() will not adjust the seek
>>     location of the backing file descriptor.  If the file descriptor passed
>>     to fdopendir() had a non-zero offset, the rewinddir() will not rewind to
>>     the beginning.  Fix this by always seeking back to 0 in rewinddir().
>>     This means the dd_rewind hack can also be removed.
>>   
>>   While here, add missing locking to rewinddir().
>>   
>>   CR:   	    	https://phabric.freebsd.org/D312
>>   Reviewed by:	jilles
>>   MFC after:	1 week
> 
> Just picking my own commit here as a sample case.
> 
> I think we should be annotating commits with phabricator code reviews in some 
> way when a change has gone through that review.  It is very useful to get back
> to the review details from the commit log message in svnweb, etc.
> 
> I can see a number of different ways to do this, but I do think it would be
> nice to pick a consistent way to do it.
> 
> Things to consider:
> 
> 1) The tag ("CR:" is what I used above).  I don't care, just pick one.  I
>    chose CR since Warner used it previously.  Whatever we decide, we should
>    add it to the template.
> 
> 2) ID vs full URL.  For PRs we just list the bug ID and not the full URL
>    (same for Coverity).  I would be fine with that so long as someone hacks
>    up svnweb to convert the IDs into links (the way it handles PR bug
>    numbers).  OTOH, if you use the full URL you get that for free in svnweb,
>    and you also get it in mail clients, etc.  It helps that the URL isn't but
>    so long.
> 
> This is more of a pie-in-the-sky, but it would be _really_ nice if arcanist 
> were hacked up to support our local commit template and would auto populate 
> the 'Reviewed by' and 'CR' (or whatever it ends up being called) fields so one 
> could use 'arc commit'.
> 
> So what do folks prefer for 1) and 2)?
> 

FYI Ports has been using the convention: "Phabric\tDXXX"

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/attachments/20140711/f5d18eb3/attachment.sig>