On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 19/12/2019 09:27, Jonathan Wakely 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) > > > > Best of all would be a pull request on > https://gitlab.com/esr/gcc-conversion/tree/master to update bugdb.py > directly. > > Second best would be something like > > whitelist: > > "<svn-revnumber>", "<svn-revnumber>", > > etc, where svn-revnumber is the revision number in svn as reported in > the checkme above but without the leading 'r' > > and > > Change: > > "<svn-revnumber>": {"PR": "<correct-bugid>"}, > .... > > where svn-revnumber is as before, and <correct-bugid> is the the PR > number that should have been used. > > The above can then be pasted quickly into the script to update it. > > R.
Thanks. I'm working through the first 100 lines in the file then. If nobody else starts, I'll take the next 100, and so on.
