Mismerge at r330897 in stable/11, Audit report

[Eitan Adler]

On 28 March 2018 at 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes
<freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>> 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=0&r1=330897&r2=330896&pathrev=330897
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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 wrong.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 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 history.
>> > >
>> > > 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.)
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > Note that I won't have access my dev box after tomorrow for about a week.
>> >
>>
>> 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.
>
> Glen,
>         I would rather not revert, as I believe that would cause more
> damages as people have already cleaned up some of the mis merge from
> this commit.  I am pretty sure a revert would lead to a broken tree.
>
> In Eitans absence I am willing to take responsiblity to untangle
> the wrong bits and clean up stable/11.
>
> Ok?
>
> Eitan,
>         Are you ok with that as well?

Yes. I also thank everyone who has helped me get out of this mess.

My current action plan: do nothing


-- 
Eitan Adler
Source, Ports, Doc committer
Bugmeister, Ports Security teams