A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...

A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...

[Jani Nikula]

Hi Florian, all -

First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches
referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful.

Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit
referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level
of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit
referencing a commit referencing the bug [1].

Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think
three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be
still be okay. What do others think?

BR,
Jani.


[1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56

Re: A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...

[Florian Mickler]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Florian, all -
> 
> First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches
> referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful.
> 
> Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit
> referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level
> of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit
> referencing a commit referencing the bug [1].
> 
> Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think
> three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be
> still be okay. What do others think?
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56

Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is
worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 -> bug associations
and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to
a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. 

If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a
commit message, that probably means it really is an important
connection.
And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean
something too. 

Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted
because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every
attempt... 

As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly
about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the
level of indirection... what do you think?


Regards,
Flo

p.s.: sorry for the late response, I'm having a bit of trouble with my
mail setup at the moment and too much to do...

 

Re: A patch referencing this bug report has been merged...

[Daniel Vetter]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 07:35:45PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Florian, all -
> > 
> > First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches
> > referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful.
> > 
> > Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit
> > referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level
> > of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit
> > referencing a commit referencing the bug [1].
> > 
> > Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think
> > three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be
> > still be okay. What do others think?
> > 
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> > 
> > 
> > [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56
> 
> Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is
> worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 -> bug associations
> and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to
> a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. 
> 
> If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a
> commit message, that probably means it really is an important
> connection.
> And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean
> something too. 
> 
> Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted
> because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every
> attempt... 
> 
> As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly
> about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the
> level of indirection... what do you think?

I think the multiple-indirection bug entries are ok, and could indeed be
useful to stitch together the story of a bug (or help us remember to
reopen a bug if we need to revert a patch). I guess drm/i915 hit a few
more of those than other people since we're always citing commits in full
(we paste --pretty=short into  commit messages). And we also tend to cite
a lot of commits, sometimes mentioning all relevant changes to the code in
the past few years ;-) Together with our tendecy to track all bug reports
in bugzilla that leads to the oddball useless commit entry in a bug.

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch