On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:14 PM Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> 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. > Indeed, we would need to be cautious about adding such automation. But there isn't any now; the only danger is of an unrelated patch showing up in a comment on a PR. Which we already get when I mess up the PR number in my test (oops). Jason
