Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, rgrimes@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-11@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Release Engineering Team <re@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mismerge at r330897 in stable/11, Audit report Message-ID: <201803290252.w2T2q7D2060452@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <201803290248.w2T2moNj007390@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <20180329022626.GP81123@FreeBSD.org>, Glen Barber writes: > > > > --88pBQ1/6ie/nQzMF > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Disposition: inline > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:17:20PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > > > On 28 March 2018 at 19:04, Rodney W. Grimes > > > <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > >> On 28 March 2018 at 18:35, Rodney W. Grimes > > > >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >> Hi! > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> This part of the MFC is wrong: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/11/sys/sys/random.h?limit= > > _changes=3D0&r1=3D330897&r2=3D330896&pathrev=3D330897 > > > >> > > > > >> > Can we try to identify exactly what rXXXXXX that is a merge of? > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> Could you please MFC back the other random related changes too? = > > Some > > > >> >> >> of them made by cem@. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> On 3/14/18, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> >> >>> Author: eadler > > > >> >> >>> Date: Wed Mar 14 03:19:51 2018 > > > >> >> >>> New Revision: 330897 > > > >> >> >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/330897 > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> Log: > > > >> >> >>> Partial merge of the SPDX changes > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> These changes are incomplete but are making it difficult > > > >> >> >>> to determine what other changes can/should be merged. > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> No objections from: pfg > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> > Am I missing something? If this MFC was supposed to be of the SPDX > > > >> >> > license tagging, why does it have any functional changes? > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Especially changes to random(4)? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> This was my failure. I only spot checked & compile-checked the diff > > > >> >> since I expected all changes to be comments/SPDX. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> However, I must have gotten carried away and included a few too many > > > >> >> revisions. Unfortunately some people have already merged fixes to my > > > >> >> failure and thus this can't be reverted as is without also reverting > > > >> >> those fixes. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> That said, I should do that since this commit message is utterly wr= > > ong. > > > >> > > > > >> > We do not have to revert r330897, with what follows I think > > > >> > we can easily find the revisions to revert from stable/11. > > > >> > ... > > > >> > > > >> While we don't have to revert it I'd rather do so than have bogus hist= > > ory. > > > > > > > > Reverting wont remove that history, thats a one way deal, > > > > and I think if we revert the bogus merges with the wrong > > > > history thats as good as its gona get. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >From a look it seems the following was also merged: > > > >> r316370, r317095, r324394, and a few others. > > > >> > > > >> Is there a reason you don't want me to revert the changes? > > > > > > > > Repository churn is my main concern. > > > > > > > > It touches 6000+ files some of which have probably > > > > been touched since. A very carefull pre commit > > > > audit would need to be done. > > > > > > > > Then another commit to 6000+ files to put it back, > > > > also needing a pre-commit audit. (Pretty easy now > > > > that I have a filter.) > > >=20 > > > I'm actually using the same filter you pasted above to verify that my > > > changes are only reverting said files. That said, while I'd prefer to > > > revert, I'll defer to others if they have a differing opinion. > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Note that I won't have access my dev box after tomorrow for about a week. > > >=20 > > > > IMHO, if you are going to be away for over a week while we're headed > > directly into the 11.2 release cycle, revert the change. What you > > committed is not what was intended, clearly, and the commit message does > > not reflect what had happened (as you noted). > > > > Any disagreements on this decision should be directed to me specifically > > in this case. > > Agreed however we must tread carefully. Agreed to that tread carefully, and I am almost positive that an attempt to revert would lead to breakage that may be more difficult to untangle than what we have now. Let me clone my stable/11 and see what a revert does to the tree. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201803290252.w2T2q7D2060452>