A small procedural request

[Tomoaki AOKI]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:22:08 +0800
Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > +1. But have one suggestion for format.
> > Something like
> >
> >   Broken by: rXXXXXXX
> >   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 rXXXXXX: Comments", it can be
> >
> >   FIX rXXXXXX: 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 rXXXXXX rYYYYYY rZZZZZZ: Comments for multiple individuals
> >   FIX rXXXXXX-rYYYYYY: Comments for massive continuous range
> >
> > would be better.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800
> > Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
> 


-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon at dec.sakura.ne.jp>