[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1649029 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_x: ./ dag.c tree.c

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:17:21 +0100

On 12.01.2015 16:54, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 12 January 2015 at 18:39, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1649029
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> Sync FSX with FSFS: Merge DAG-related sub-pool introduction
>>>>>> patches r1647905, r1648243, r1648253 and r1648272 from FSFS
>>>>>> and resolve the usual text conflicts due to naming differences.
>>>>>> Block revisions r1648230, r1648238, r1648241, r1648242 and r1648532.
>>> Also, it seems that this commit has another problems:
>>> 1. It doesn't have proper log message [1].
>>> 2. It mixes different unrelated changes in one commit, while it will
>>> be much easier to review them separately.
>> There is nothing wrong here. The log message says what's merged, and that is four revisions all described as "DAG-related sub-pool introduction", which means they are all parts of the same change - not unrelated changes.
> Subversion community guide is very specific about proper log messages
> and I don't understand why this commit (and other previous FSX "merge"
> commits") does not follow it.
> Quoting Subversion community guide [1] again:
> [[[
> The log message should name every affected function, variable, macro,
> makefile target, grammar rule, etc, including the names of symbols
> that are being removed in this commit. This helps people searching
> through the logs later. Don't hide names in wildcards, because the
> globbed portion may be what someone searches for later.
> ]]]
> There is very good reason that every affected identifier should be
> mentioned in log message.

The point of that text is that anyone should be able to easily find the
changes just by reading the logs. When we merge stuff between branches,
we always just write which revisions were merged from where and why.
That's a clear pointer to the original logs. You're splitting hairs that
aren't even there.

Furthermore, you're trying to apply a resolved veto to code that was not
covered by it; we all agree that FSX is experimental and who's to know
what further changes will happen to those bits of code in the next
several years? Not to mention the last several days, if you want to be
pedantic about pool usage; it's all in the commit logs.

I'm really getting awfully tired of this constant sniping. Can you
please calm down a bit before you randomly accuse people for doing stuff
that's perfectly in line with our policies? Correction: ONE person;
which is, in fact, quite a bit worse.

-- Brane
Received on 2015-01-12 17:17:54 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.