On 13/05/2020 12:05, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I'm sending the gcc-changelog relates scripts which should be added to
> contrib
> folder. The patch contains:
> - git_check_commit.py - checking script that verifies git message format
> - git_update_version.py - a replacement of
> maintainer-scripts/update_version_git which
> bumps DATESTAMP and generates ChangeLog entries (for now into
> ChangeLog.test files)
> - git_commit.py, git_email.py and git_repository.py - helper classes
> 
> I also added a new git.config alias: 'gcc-verify' which can be used in
> the following
> way:
> 
> $ git gcc-verify HEAD~2..HEAD -p -n
> Checking 0e4009e9d523270e26856d2441c1be3d8119a477
> OK
> @@CL contrib
> 2020-05-13  Martin Liska  <mli...@suse.cz>
> 
>     * gcc-changelog/git_check_commit.py: New file.
>     * gcc-changelog/git_commit.py: New file.
>     * gcc-changelog/git_email.py: New file.
>     * gcc-changelog/git_repository.py: New file.
>     * gcc-changelog/git_update_version.py: New file.
>     * gcc-git-customization.sh: Add gcc-verify alias.
> @@CL
> Checking 18edc195442291525e04f0fa4d5ef972155117da
> OK
> @@CL gcc
> 2020-05-13  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
> 
>     PR debug/95080
>     * cfgrtl.c (purge_dead_edges): Skip over debug and note insns even
>     if the last insn is a note.
> @@CL gcc/testsuite
> 2020-05-13  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
> 
>     PR debug/95080
>     * g++.dg/opt/pr95080.C: New test.
> @@CL
> 
> Note the -n option which disables _strict mode_ (modification of both
> ChangeLog
> and another files).
> 
> The second part is git hook that will reject all commits for release and
> master branches.
> that violate ChangeLog format. Right now, strict mode is disabled in the
> hooks.
> 
> What's still missing to be done is format of Revert and Backport commits.
> I suggest to use native 'git revert XYZ' and 'git cherry-pick -x XYZ'.
> Doing that the commit messages will provide link to original commit and
> the script
> can later append corresponding 'Backported ..' or 'Reverted' line.
> 
> Thoughts?
> Martin

I've just realized this doesn't give us an easy way to mark changes for
the root-level ChangeLog file, unless, perhaps "@@ CL ." works?

R.

Reply via email to