Mismerge at r330897 in stable/11, Audit report

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> In message <20180329022626.GP81123 at FreeBSD.org>, Glen Barber writes:
> > 
> > --88pBQ1/6ie/nQzMF
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:17:20PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > > On 28 March 2018 at 19:04, Rodney W. Grimes
> > > <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 28 March 2018 at 18:35, Rodney W. Grimes
> > > >> <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Hi!
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> This part of the MFC is wrong:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/11/sys/sys/random.h?limit=
> > _changes=3D0&r1=3D330897&r2=3D330896&pathrev=3D330897
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Can we try to identify exactly what rXXXXXX that is a merge of?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> Could you please MFC back the other random related changes too? =
> > Some
> > > >> >> >> of them made by cem at .
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> On 3/14/18, Eitan Adler <eadler at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> Author: eadler
> > > >> >> >>> Date: Wed Mar 14 03:19:51 2018
> > > >> >> >>> New Revision: 330897
> > > >> >> >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/330897
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> Log:
> > > >> >> >>>   Partial merge of the SPDX changes
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>>   These changes are incomplete but are making it difficult
> > > >> >> >>>   to determine what other changes can/should be merged.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>>   No objections from:        pfg
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> > Am I missing something? If this MFC was supposed to be of the SPDX
> > > >> >> > license tagging, why does it have any functional changes?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Especially changes to random(4)?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This was my failure. I only spot checked & compile-checked the diff
> > > >> >> since I expected all changes to be comments/SPDX.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, I must have gotten carried away and included a few too many
> > > >> >> revisions. Unfortunately some people have already merged fixes to my
> > > >> >> failure and thus this can't be reverted as is without also reverting
> > > >> >> those fixes.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> That said, I should do that since this commit message is utterly wr=
> > ong.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We do not have to revert r330897, with what follows I think
> > > >> > we can easily find the revisions to revert from stable/11.
> > > >> > ...
> > > >>
> > > >> While we don't have to revert it I'd rather do so than have bogus hist=
> > ory.
> > > >
> > > > Reverting wont remove that history, thats a one way deal,
> > > > and I think if we revert the bogus merges with the wrong
> > > > history thats as good as its gona get.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> >From a look it seems the following was also merged:
> > > >> r316370, r317095, r324394, and a few others.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there a reason you don't want me to revert the changes?
> > > >
> > > > Repository churn is my main concern.
> > > >
> > > > It touches 6000+ files some of which have probably
> > > > been touched since.   A very carefull pre commit
> > > > audit would need to be done.
> > > >
> > > > Then another commit to 6000+ files to put it back,
> > > > also needing a pre-commit audit. (Pretty easy now
> > > > that I have a filter.)
> > >=20
> > > I'm actually using the same filter you pasted above to verify that my
> > > changes are only reverting said files. That said, while I'd prefer to
> > > revert, I'll defer to others if they have a differing opinion.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Note that I won't have access my dev box after tomorrow for about a week.
> > >=20
> >
> > IMHO, if you are going to be away for over a week while we're headed
> > directly into the 11.2 release cycle, revert the change.  What you
> > committed is not what was intended, clearly, and the commit message does
> > not reflect what had happened (as you noted).
> >
> > Any disagreements on this decision should be directed to me specifically
> > in this case.
> 
> Agreed however we must tread carefully.

Agreed to that tread carefully, and I am almost positive that an
attempt to revert would lead to breakage that may be more difficult
to untangle than what we have now.

Let me clone my stable/11 and see what a revert does to the tree.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org