[llvm-dev] [RFC] Helping release management
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 17 10:14:21 PDT 2016
On 17 May 2016 at 17:25, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
> I do not see how the proposal goes against that policy. I certainly believe that the discussion should stay in the bugzilla, but I do not see why this is incompatible with the fact of summarizing some information in the commit message.
> Basically what I tend to push for is self contained information for quick reference in the log. Then, if people want more information, they are encouraged to check the bugzilla.
That is already clear on the current policy, though...
"The body should be concise, but explanatory, including a complete reasoning.
Unless it is required to understand the change, examples, code snippets and
gory details should be left to bug comments, web review or the mailing list."
But I got it that you want "some" things more specific. I'm just
sceptical as to how much that will benefit the overall scheme of
I think this should be a proper review, separated from this thread,
with the reasoning well explained. Let's focus on explaining it. :)
> Yes, links can rot, though http:/llvm.org/PR# is relatively stable (at least it did not break with the last migration), plus the PR number is still here.
> In other words, I believe that link adds a convenient way to access bugzilla while still providing the default information if the link rots.
I'm not fussy about the URL, but changing the style now will mean all
commits so far will behave differently, people will continue using the
old style for a long time, and we'll have to support both ways
It should be hard to auto-link on any tool / web-page from the PR. I
just don't see the benefit in this change.
Remember, this is about changing how people write commit messages and
it's not a trivial matter. We already got used to doing this, unless
there's a strong argument against the current model, I don't think we
should change it.
> I miss the point.
> For existing PR we would have: fixes PR1234.
> For new PR we would have: fixes PRNew, where PRNew is a keyword that means create a PR and put the actual number in place of PRNew.
But that's not all there is to it...
The PRNew tag will mean: create a bug, add the text of this commit to
it, mark it fixed by this commit, close it.
First, it'll require people actually remembering to put that, which in
my view is as easy/hard to make them remember to open a bug.
Second, what if this is a series of fixes, how to you connect this fix
Finally, and more importantly, who do we CC? To which component do we
associate the bug? Which fix version? Is this a candidate for
back-port? Is this a conformance or performance regression, or just a
fix to a new bug?
All those questions require answers, and they either go blank (thus
making the bug practically useless), or they require further
free-text-based encoding on what they are in the commit message.
I have had the unfortunate chance to work on free-text encodings 
where some of the encoded part was well defined, others not so much.
They were all equally horrid to work with. I'm really glad I don't
ever have to look back.
Moreover, the experience was equally appalling to the users of our
tools (people manually encoding the knowledge), so I can confidently
say that using such a scheme, on any depth, will bring us misery.
> Well, what I am trying to do is to make that automatic. I would be the first one annoyed if I have to file a PR before fixing any thing. If when I am fixing something, I just have to add “fixes PRNew”, that sounds easy enough to me :).
It would be as easy to write a script to automatically create a bug
 for you from your current git branch, update your local PRNew
tags, then commit.
The difference being that this will not get into the commit message
policy, which was already regarded as too long and prone to be ignored
by most people that contributed to that discussion...
If everyone uses your tool, great! We still don't need to add to the
commit policy. If no one end up using it, equally great, we didn't
change the policy for nothing.
My whole point is, KISS. It's a lot easier to add things to a policy
than it is to remove from them. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
> Sure, but I don’t see why you are opposing this two approaches: file a PR followed by a fix and file a PR with a fix.
> Of course, people that don’t use the marking keywords will be out of the system, that I agree, but it seems to me that having automatic process like this will lower the bar for most people (assuming this is possible).
People out of the system will never care. People in the system that
get things slightly wrong will be very annoyed.
Unless we're willing to reject any commit message that is malformed
(and you can't tell if it's just malformed or ignored, so you have to
reject *all* non-conforming), people with good intention will be the
ones hurt the most.
I don't think we want to start rejecting commits because of the
messages... or we'd have done by now.
More information about the llvm-dev