On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 09:27, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > > > > > > I've attached a sample from the start of the fixed list - the full list > > > > is far > > > > too big to post to give a flavour of how the script currently works. > > > > Note > > > > that annotations of the form [checkme: ....] in the summary are for > > > > diagnostic > > > > purposes. These are where heuristics suggest that there's a higher than > > > > normal chance that the PR number is incorrect and that manual auditing > > > > is > > > > recommended. Such annotations would not be appropriate in the final > > > > conversion. > > > > > > Concretely, here is the current list of 664 checkme: annotations where > > > something was suspicious about the PR number (either component mismatch or > > > resolved as INVALID). Would some people like to volunteer to pick up > > > sections of this list and, for their section, produce a list of SVN > > > revisions (at the end of the checkme line) for which the PR number appears > > > to be correct, and a list of mappings from SVN revision to correct PR > > > number when the PR number appears to be wrong? For any that don't get > > > reviewed like that we can easily make the script, for the final > > > conversion, decline to add a new summary line for any commit where the PR > > > number is suspicious. > > > > Here's a slightly shorter version with 644 checkme: annotations, after > > adding a few more component aliases to the script (e.g., no longer > > considering it suspicious if the log message says PR g++/something and > > that PR is in the component that's actually called c++). > > Line 18: c++ SVN r116634, looks suspicious, but PR number is correct. > Line 326: lto SVN r196613, PR number is correct > Line 411: libstdc++ SVN r219147, PR number is correct > > > How do you want the mapping from SVN revision to correct PR to be expressed? > > Line 19: the correct PR for fortran SVN r120056 is fortran/30238 (not 39238) > Line 608: lto SVN r268728 should be PR 87089 (not 87809) > Line 616: lto SVN r269799 should be PR 87089 (not 87809)
I can take a chunk of the file, but I'll wait until I know how to present the results.
