Mismerge at r330897 in stable/11, Audit report

[Rodney W. Grimes]

[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> 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

Well, you just reverted it before this discussion came to a
concensus on that.   Not sure what to do now.

I guess we wait to see whats broken.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org