On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> [U:major] Better interactive conflict resolution for tree conflicts
> [U:minor] ra_serf: Adjustments for serf versions with HTTP/2 support
> [U:client] Fix 'svn diff URL_at_REV WC' wrongly looks up URL_at_HEAD (issue #4597)
> [U:client-server] Fix bug with canonicalizing Window-specific
> drive-relative URL
> [D:api] New svn_ra_list() API function
> [D:bindings] JavaHL: Allow access to constructors of a couple JavaHL classes
> To get a rough idea: since we don't have any commit messages
> containing such lines in our history, I've added a --pocfirstlines
> option, which just takes the first line of every log message (ignoring
> lines with 'STATUS', 'CHANGES', 'bump', or starting with '*'), putting
> them in the "User -> General" section.
If we're gonna add some form of structured information to our log messages,
I'd prefer the git model with a simple heuristic which builds an uncategorized
The first line of the message is what will end up in CHANGES. If the line
mentions an issue number, that will appear in CHANGES as (issue #N), else
the revision number will appear in changes as (rN). If the line matches
'[Rr]evert rN' then a prior entry for rN is removed again. If the log message
matches '[Ff]ollow(ing)-up to' the entry is dropped. If the log message
contains '[Nn]o functional change' anywhere, the entry is dropped.
That should suffice for the most tedious part of the task: Getting a list
of eligible entries. Categorizing the resulting list can be done by hand,
and remaining unimportant changes must be removed by hand.
I would refrain from trying to over-automate this task. It's not a lot of work
compared to the time we spend writing code. I think I have added most of the
1.10 entries in CHANGES myself just by reading through the log, and even that
wasn't too much effort. It took about a day and a half, and it also forced me
to read through the entries in detail which helped understand the impact of
each change. This was a much bigger problem from the project's origins through
to 1.8, when we had a lot of active developers. For 1.9/1.10 we had a lot less
activity overall and we can expect it to decrease further in the future.
Even if we tag log messages as you suggest, we'll need some mechanism to
deal with tags which are wrong or missing, and that's also tedious and
requires checking each entry anyway. Also, it is unclear how tagging as
suggested helps with features developed on trunk over long periods of time.
For example, the conflict resolver probably got a couple hundred commits
but it only requires one CHANGES entry. Should these all be tagged 'U:major'?
Or do we now enforce branch-based development so that only the final merge
commit is tagged, with the downsides that implies, such as no testing during
development by anyone except the original developer? Or do we add feature tags
which our script can recognize, such as [U:conflict-resolver]? Could we now
end up needing multiple tags for some messages? Will it become too complicated?
I believe that whatever we do, somebody will still have to read the full log
and check each entry in CHANGES to avoid listing a lot of trivial stuff,
and to make sure the most impactful changes appear at the top.
Received on 2017-12-04 13:45:58 CET