On 2018-05-12 01:15, Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote: > Ian Lepore (i...@freebsd.org) wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 19:31 -0400, Jonathan T. Looney wrote: >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Hurd <sh...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Author: shurd >>>> Date: Fri May 11 20:40:26 2018 >>>> New Revision: 333503 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/333503 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> MFC r333329, r333366, r333373 >>>> >>>> r333329: Fix off-by-one error requesting tx interrupt >>>> r333366: Cleanup queues when iflib_device_register fails >>>> r333373: Log iflib_tx_structures_setup failure in function >>>> >>> Is this an acceptable style for MFC logs? >>> >>> I'm asking because I actually prefer this to reading (or compiling) the >>> concatenated log messages from several changes. However, I never knew it >>> was acceptable to summarize like this. If it is, I'd like to know so I can >>> adopt it for run-of-the-mill MFCs. >>> >>> Jonathan >> >> This used to be my preferred format, essentially to summarize what's >> being mfc'd. But then I started using the MFC Tracker tool [*] and it >> automatically generates a commit message that contains the full text, >> so I stopped trying to summarize things. > > I've just deployed new mfctracker version with summarized MFC commit > message support so users can now switch between full MFC log and a > short version. Of course it's only useful if selected commits have > one-line summary in the first line of a commit message. > >> [*] https://mfc.kernelnomicon.org/6/ >> >> -- Ian >
Thank you for building and constantly improving this extremely useful tool. -- Allan Jude
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
