On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:51:10PM +, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
> Just for anyone interested -- the manpage that describes the '!' is
> `gitglossary`.
>
> It's under the description of `pathspec`, and has a long-form of
> `:(exclude)`.
On 08/02/2020 16:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
Jason> I omit ChangeLogs by adding ':!*/ChangeLog' to the end of the git
Jason> send-email command. I don't remember where I found that incantation.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Instead of "git am" I had "patch -p1 <",
May I suggest "git apply" instead of the good old patch program.
(The "-p1" is of course built-in and you never have to do a
manual roll-back or separate --dry-run pass.)
brgds, H-P
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:43 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2020 15:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:56:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >> On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> Should we require some simple markup in the
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:46:04AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> My main point was that Richi should be committing things, not working
> with uncommitted patches hanging around making things dirty.
>
> I like to use branches, but having a single branch with a series of
> commits that you
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 19:58, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 09:46:53AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:25AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > With Git you can't really have unwanted local commits present in a
> > > tree if you use a sensible
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 03:55:33PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 8:51 AM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
> > >
> > > Jason> I omit ChangeLogs by adding
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 8:51 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
> >
> > Jason> I omit ChangeLogs by adding ':!*/ChangeLog' to the end of the git
> > Jason> send-email command. I don't remember
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 09:46:53AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:25AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > With Git you can't really have unwanted local commits present in a
> > tree if you use a sensible workflow, so if you tested in a tree that
> > was at commit 1234abcd
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
>
> Jason> I omit ChangeLogs by adding ':!*/ChangeLog' to the end of the git
> Jason> send-email command. I don't remember where I found that incantation.
>
> Cool, I did not know about this.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:25AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> With Git you can't really have unwanted local commits present in a
> tree if you use a sensible workflow, so if you tested in a tree that
> was at commit 1234abcd and you push from another machine that is at
> the same commit, you
> "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes:
Jason> I omit ChangeLogs by adding ':!*/ChangeLog' to the end of the git
Jason> send-email command. I don't remember where I found that incantation.
Cool, I did not know about this.
FWIW if you have the ChangeLog merger available, it's actually more
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:44 PM Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan" == Jonathan Wakely writes:
>
> Jonathan> I have a script that does the opposite, which I've been using for
> Jonathan> years. I edit the ChangeLog files as before, and a Git
> Jonathan> prepare-commit-msg hook extracts the top
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Wakely writes:
Jonathan> I have a script that does the opposite, which I've been using for
Jonathan> years. I edit the ChangeLog files as before, and a Git
Jonathan> prepare-commit-msg hook extracts the top changelog entry from each
Jonathan> file in the commit and
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 03:43:05PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 07/02/2020 15:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:56:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>Any script should, in addition to extracting the author and email also
> >>grep for
On 07/02/2020 15:32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:56:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Should we require some simple markup in the commit message before the
changelogs? Maybe
CL gcc/
* blablalba etc.
CL
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:56:08PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >Should we require some simple markup in the commit message before the
> >changelogs? Maybe
> >
> >CL gcc/
> > * blablalba etc.
> >CL gcc/testsuite/
> > *
On 07/02/2020 13:48, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:19:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
Yeah, don't look at me then :-)
I *like* having most of those steps, most of this should only be done by
people who
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:19:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Yeah, don't look at me then :-)
> >
> > I *like* having most of those steps, most of this should only be done by
> > people who are awake.
> >
> > > it's
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 09:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Instead of "git am" I had "patch -p1 <", distributing the changelog parts
> > I just did in vi (as with git), then "svn ci", which pick up all modified
> > files directly
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > If you rebase changelog files, then yes, it's a bloody pain ;-)
> >
> > So do you have a script
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:57:49PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 AM Segher Boessenkool <
> seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > We also need a way to fix changelog entries for the errors that do seep
> > through (and that are bad enough that they do need
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > If you rebase changelog files, then yes, it's a bloody pain ;-)
>
> So do you have a script that takes a commit with a ChangeLog at its end
> and populates the
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 AM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> We also need a way to fix changelog entries for the errors that do seep
> through (and that are bad enough that they do need fixing). It doesn't
> have to be easy or convenient, but we need *some* way to
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:17:54AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > We would need to agree how do we express stuff going into different former
> > ChangeLog files, whether we require gcc/cp/ etc. prefixes before the lines,
> > or say require empty line for different former ChangeLog files and
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:56:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:43:54PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > And FWIW, we're talking about the ChangeLog *file* here. If folks
> > continued writing the same log messages and put them into git, I
> > personally think that's
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:43:54PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 15:18 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > ANd yes, even though I have been a regular ChangeLog user, I rely more
> > > and more on the git log these
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> So do you have a script that takes a commit with a ChangeLog at its end
> and populates the appropriate ChangeLog files? I'm trying to come up with
> one to make the process less manual ... it's definitely a part that requires
> more typing
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:43:54PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 15:18 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > As a reviewer, the changelog is priceless still. We shouldn't drop the
> > > changelog before people write
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:43:54PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 15:18 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > As a reviewer, the changelog is priceless still. We shouldn't drop the
> > changelog before people write *good* commit messages (and we are still
> > quite far from that
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:51:42AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> ANd yes, even though I have been a regular ChangeLog user, I rely more
> >> and more on the git log these days.
> >
> > As a reviewer,
On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 15:18 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > ANd yes, even though I have been a regular ChangeLog user, I rely more
> > and more on the git log these days.
>
> As a reviewer, the changelog is priceless still. We
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> ANd yes, even though I have been a regular ChangeLog user, I rely more
>> and more on the git log these days.
>
> As a reviewer, the changelog is priceless still. We shouldn't drop the
> changelog before
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> ANd yes, even though I have been a regular ChangeLog user, I rely more
> and more on the git log these days.
As a reviewer, the changelog is priceless still. We shouldn't drop the
changelog before people write *good* commit messages
On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 18:55 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Paul Smith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 22:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
> > > > > > replace
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Paul Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 22:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
>> > > > replace ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for
>> > > > the
On 2/3/20 5:15 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 25/01/2020 16:11, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git
On 25/01/2020 16:11, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
In my experience the output of git log is a
On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
> > >
> > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot replace
ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for the
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 22:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
> > > > replace ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for
> > > > the testsuite.
> > >
> > > Well,
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 22:45 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot
> > > replace ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for
> > > the testsuite.
> >
> > Well, glibc has moved to extracting them from git, building
> >
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 02:36:31PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
> >
> > In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot replace
> > ChangeLogs. But we can well
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
>
> In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot replace
> ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for the testsuite.
Well, glibc has moved to
* Eric Botcazou:
>> I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
>
> In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot replace
> ChangeLogs.
That's fixable if the commit message is part of the patch review
(just like the source code comments).
> I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git log.
In my experience the output of git log is a total mess so cannot replace
ChangeLogs. But we can well decide to drop ChangeLog for the testsuite.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 13:49 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > > On 1/24/20 8:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > > > There is no ChangeLog entry for the testsuite changes.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe in ChangeLog entries for testcases, but I'll add one for
> > > > the target-supports.exp
>> > On 1/24/20 8:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> > > There is no ChangeLog entry for the testsuite changes.
>> >
>> > I don't believe in ChangeLog entries for testcases, but I'll add one for
>> > the target-supports.exp change, thanks.
>>
>> Is this a general policy change that we want to make?
48 matches
Mail list logo
