Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:50:33 -0400 From: "David Magda" <dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca> To: "Eitan Adler" <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The MFC process... Message-ID: <fa8011782787cd9e6d65746ae11067c2.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgm9gyY936VO9Fc%2B19vcfs8vsbMYC_LW0jxgpvSP==j-Cg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgkrb9yjn9bU7U03NHjRZhMDfOhhm_yNtB-cgHahG4zfwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CC2A7147.32760%trent@snakebite.org> <CAF6rxgm9gyY936VO9Fc%2B19vcfs8vsbMYC_LW0jxgpvSP==j-Cg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, July 17, 2012 02:10, Eitan Adler wrote: > Of interest to me: if it could be limited to just the commits I made > and optionally show me the log message and diff it would be very > helpful. > > On a general note: be careful with any level of automation with this > script though. Sometimes there are good reasons that a commit wasn't > MFCed. A lot of messages have a "MFC after" note on them, so the the developer/s in question already know which commits are good candidates for bringing over to STABLE. It may simply be that they could use a reminder on them. If there are commits that would be nice to backport, but don't have an "MFC" note on them, then an email and/or PR would probably be the best way to enquire about their candidacy. I think having a script automatically pulling changes from HEAD, to STABLE, is a bad idea. A human should be the one doing it and examining the results, even if they get an automated reminder.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fa8011782787cd9e6d65746ae11067c2.squirrel>