On 6/18/21 8:41 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 7:06 AM Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com>
wrote:
On 18.06.21 11:32, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc wrote:
On 17/06/2021 18:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
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.
That misses my point. If we use a tool to help doing this we can make
the tool also scrape the entry out of bugzilla and print the summary
line as a stronger visual check that the number has been typed
correctly. We get many bug attributions wrong simply because two digits
have been transposed: visually checking the summary line is a far
stronger check that the correct number has been entered.
I want to point out that 'mklog -p' already outputs the bug-summary lines
at the top of the generated changelog, by fetching them from Bugzilla
This patch extends this by:
* Being able to specify the PR numbers on the command line in addition
(currently, they are only extracted from the testsuite patches)
This bit seems unnecessary to me, since we want the commit to include tests
that identify the PR.
Martin Sebor's patch to extract the PR number from the testcase filename,
as an alternative to a comment, should be enough.
Just to prevent a deadlock: Tobias, please feel free to reuse any
parts of my patch if you wish, or just go with what you have if you
prefer. I can submit whatever's left after you're done.
Martin
