Replacing USE_GCC=any and the danfe@ filter (was: svn commit: r568012 - head/net/tightvnc)

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 03.06.21 12:11, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 11:50:54AM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03.06.21 08:32, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:22:47AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for working on this.
>>>>
>>>> So, I was just ready to commit the next step and prepared a nice git
>>>> style commit message:
>>>>
>>>>      Replace USE_GCC=any with USE_GCC=yes
>>>>      USE_GCC=any has been equivalent to USE_GCC=yes in most cases (such
>>>>      as i386 and amd64 since 12.x and depending on configuration 11.x,
>>>>      most newer installations on other platforms, and 13.x across the
>>>>      board).
>>>>      Since commit 96c17633d90386b5bcf8 Mk/bsd.gcc.mk ...
>>>>
>>>> Alas, the danfe@ filter struck:
>>>>
>>>>      remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (111/111), completed with 111 local objects.
>>>>      remote:
>>>>      remote: ================================================================
>>>>      remote: First line does not start with the regular
>>>>      remote: category/port: subject
>>>>      remote: ================================================================
>>>>
>>>> What now?
>>>>
>>>> Neither "*/*: Replace USE_GCC=any..." in the subject nor a couple dozen
>>>> individual commits strike me as desirable.
>>>
>>> *: Replace... works just fine.
>>
>> This seems to be a transcription of "It works around a rule which has its
>> purpose but should not be enforced 100% of the time".
> 
> Well, no, the subject of all commits has to have a "discriminator" to
> tell people scanning commits what a commit is about.
> 
> Having '*:' or '*/*:' for commits that span many ports is also fine, it
> does not defeats the rule, it acts as the discriminator saying that it's
> not about a specific port, but a change, like a framework sweep.

I tend to disagree. I am pretty sure that i can literally name thousands 
of ports which are not effected by the USE_GCC commit.

Just to be clear: i am in favor of this commit-style. But enforcing this 
rule tries to safe a non-technical problem and just open other issues.

Best,
Torsten