svn commit: r333503 - stable/11/sys/net

[Oleksandr Tymoshenko]

Ian Lepore (ian at freebsd.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 19:31 -0400, Jonathan T. Looney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Hurd <shurd at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Author: shurd
> > > Date: Fri May 11 20:40:26 2018
> > > New Revision: 333503
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/333503
> > > 
> > > Log:
> > >   MFC r333329, r333366, r333373
> > > 
> > >   r333329: Fix off-by-one error requesting tx interrupt
> > >   r333366: Cleanup queues when iflib_device_register fails
> > >   r333373: Log iflib_tx_structures_setup failure in function
> > > 
> > Is this an acceptable style for MFC logs?
> > 
> > I'm asking because I actually prefer this to reading (or compiling) the
> > concatenated log messages from several changes. However, I never knew it
> > was acceptable to summarize like this. If it is, I'd like to know so I can
> > adopt it for run-of-the-mill MFCs.
> > 
> > Jonathan
> 
> This used to be my preferred format, essentially to summarize what's
> being mfc'd. But then I started using the MFC Tracker tool [*] and it
> automatically generates a commit message that contains the full text,
> so I stopped trying to summarize things.

I've just deployed new mfctracker version with summarized MFC commit
message support so users can now switch between full MFC log and a
short version. Of course it's only useful if selected commits have
one-line summary in the first line of a commit message.
 
> [*] https://mfc.kernelnomicon.org/6/
> 
> -- Ian

-- 
gonzo