This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ChangeLogs in commit messages
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, gdb at sourceware dot org, Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:09:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: ChangeLogs in commit messages
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140814083231 dot GA6283 at blade dot nx> <6036430 dot RnprRWgZmF at vapier> <20140814131206 dot GA12746 at blade dot nx> <20140814132939 dot GH4924 at adacore dot com> <20140815084819 dot GB30130 at blade dot nx> <20140815121102 dot GB6019 at adacore dot com>
Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Andreas Arnez pointed out that Joel previously mentioned
> > generating the actual ChangeLog files from the commit messages,
> > here:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-01/msg00578.html
> >
> > This sounds like an interesting idea, but we really would have to
> > standardize on a particular format, and I think #1 (path and
> > author- date headers) is the only option that could realistically
> > work. If we standardize on this now (and put some checks on the
> > server to weed out bad messages) then come December we'll have
> > four months of commit messages we can use to check whether we can
> > correctly replicate the ChangeLog files. And, if we can, we can
> > consider omitting the files from the repo and generating them as
> > needed for tarballs.
> >
> > How does this sound?
>
> That sounds good to me. I do agree that a server-side "update" check
> is needed to verify the CL entry is present in the revision log and
> in the correct format.
Does anybody have any experience writing such checks? Or, does
anybody know of any project that already uses such checks? I can
look into doing it myself (it's a pre-receive hook, right?)
Cheers,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/