On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 at 09:55, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 at 08:05, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:58 PM Christophe Lyon > > > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > In https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches we ask to use [PRnnnn] > > > > without the Bugzilla component identifier and with no space between > > > > 'PR' and the number, but git_check_commit.py accepts all forms. The > > > > patch enforces what we document. > > > > > > > > Note that this would reject a few of the recent commits. > > > > > > Why would we be this restrictive? I personally am using > > > > Well, someone made me realize that I should have used [PRnnnn] rather > > than (PR nnnn) in a recent commit, as documented in "Contributing to > > GCC". > > > > Since I use gcc-verify, I looked at why I missed that, and hence > > proposed this patch, so that our tools match what we document.... > > > > > > > > bugzilla-component/number - description > > > > > > IMO 'PR' is redundant and the component helps screening for area of > > > maintenance. > > The documented style is > bugzilla-component: description [PRnumber]
And so I do think we should reject (PR nnn) at the end, for example. Maybe the other checks don't need to be so strict, I don't feel strongly about that. > (it doesn't need to be exactly bugzilla-component, though sometimes the > component and bugzilla-component are the same thing). > I believe it has been discussed on the mailing lists before it was > added to contribute.html. > > Jakub >
