[llvm-dev] [RFC] Helping release management

Frédéric Riss via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed May 11 07:59:20 PDT 2016

> On May 11, 2016, at 5:44 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 at 01:48, Frédéric Riss <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I’ve been doing quite a bit of that lately. The problem is not when you cut
>> the branch, but how you maintain it. For multiple months after you branched,
>> you’re willing to take fixes for miscompiles. So you have to got through
>> every commit and gauge the risk/benefit, see if it applies, if it passes the
>> tests…
> Indeed!
> However, during our "commit message" discussion [1], the consensus was
> that too many rules means everyone will forget one or the other and
> the result will be worse. So we have to be careful with what we ask.

I didn’t mean to imply that we need to change/enforce anything, I’m aware of the trade offs. I was just pointing out some IMO relevant experience in response to ‘just choose an idles time for branching and you’ve got no issue’. We rely on people’s goodwill to write nice commit messages — this is not going to change — and my only goal was to remind readers why clear commit messages are important (ie. I know about the guidelines, it would be nice if more people followed them).


>> Anything that helps tracking that a particular commit need followup commits
>> to be fully functional would be a win. I think just mentioning the original
>> commit in the followups is a minimum (then you can have tooling to relate
>> the commits), but I don’t see a way to enforce this.
> The commit message guideline [2] already says that:
> * If the commit is a bug fix on top of another recently committed
> patch, or a revert or reapply of a patch, include the svn revision
> number of the prior related commit.
>> It’s not always easy to distinguish between the first four, and you really
>> want to understand it before cherry-picking in a long living branch.
> Right now [2], we already have [TAG]s, PR mentions, and NFC flags to
> account for most of what you want, but we do not have the set { opt /
> codegen / crash } for what the fix is.
> It is an interesting idea, and I try to do that myself as free text as
> often as possible. But even if we add that, it still will be
> considered "guideline", not a "rule", and therefore candidate for
> being ignored like all the others.
> I personally like rules, and wouldn't mind some git hooks on commit
> messages, but the risk of false positives and maintenance of hooks is
> one that we cannot ignore. The alternatives are to either close down
> the commit access like the GCC folks do, or to impose a culture of
> backlash like the Kernel folks do.
> That was discussed [1] and the consensus is that we prefer to have
> guidelines and keep reminding people to be responsible.
> cheers,
> --renato
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2014-September/077089.html
> [2] http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#commit-messages

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list