On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 05:12:52PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote:
>
> > It seems a bit dangerous to me to rely on just extracting PR numbers from
> > tests. What if the patch is just adjusting a test to make it compatible
> > with
> > the remainder of the change?
>
> Also, that a test is added for a PR, or a commit is relevant to a PR, is a
> weaker property than the commit *resolving* the PR. The fact that a
> commit *resolves* a PR (allows it to be marked as resolved, or the
> regression markers to be updated if it's resolved in master but the fix
> still needs to be backported) needs to be explicitly affirmed by the
> committer (possibly based on a question asked by a script) rather than
> assumed by default based on the PR being mentioned somewhere.
mklog as is doesn't fill in the details (descriptions of the changes
to each function etc.), nor is realiable in many cases, and with Jason's
recent change just fills in the first and last part of the first line
but not the important middle part.
So, the developer has to hand edit it anyway and that I'd consider also
be the right time when the verification whether the PR being mentioned
is the right one etc. So no need to add a question asked by the script
at another point.
Jakub
