Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:52:23 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@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: <CAF6rxgnEr9fk-5ZVkyL2QNSbSxxwEQkdOt=%2BmZv2x5dih6qbhw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201803290249.w2T2n6Hq060412@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <20180329022626.GP81123@FreeBSD.org> <201803290249.w2T2n6Hq060412@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 March 2018 at 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> 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=0&r1=330897&r2=330896&pathrev=330897 >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 wrong. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 history. >> > > >> > > 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.) >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > Note that I won't have access my dev box after tomorrow for about a week. >> > >> >> 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. > > Glen, > I would rather not revert, as I believe that would cause more > damages as people have already cleaned up some of the mis merge from > this commit. I am pretty sure a revert would lead to a broken tree. > > In Eitans absence I am willing to take responsiblity to untangle > the wrong bits and clean up stable/11. > > Ok? > > Eitan, > Are you ok with that as well? Yes. I also thank everyone who has helped me get out of this mess. My current action plan: do nothing -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnEr9fk-5ZVkyL2QNSbSxxwEQkdOt=%2BmZv2x5dih6qbhw>