Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:38:23 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: src-committers@freebsd.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Phabric IDs / URLs in commits Message-ID: <201407111238.23391.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201407111616.s6BGGQFW060195@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201407111616.s6BGGQFW060195@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, July 11, 2014 12:16:26 pm John Baldwin wrote: > Author: jhb > Date: Fri Jul 11 16:16:26 2014 > New Revision: 268531 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/268531 > > Log: > Fix some edge cases with rewinddir(): > - In the unionfs case, opendir() and fdopendir() read the directory's full > contents and cache it. This cache is not refreshed when rewinddir() is > called, so rewinddir() will not notice updates to a directory. Fix this > by splitting the code to fetch a directory's contents out of > __opendir_common() into a new _filldir() function and call this from > rewinddir() when operating on a unionfs directory. > - If rewinddir() is called on a directory opened with fdopendir() before > any directory entries are fetched, rewinddir() will not adjust the seek > location of the backing file descriptor. If the file descriptor passed > to fdopendir() had a non-zero offset, the rewinddir() will not rewind to > the beginning. Fix this by always seeking back to 0 in rewinddir(). > This means the dd_rewind hack can also be removed. > > While here, add missing locking to rewinddir(). > > CR: https://phabric.freebsd.org/D312 > Reviewed by: jilles > MFC after: 1 week Just picking my own commit here as a sample case. I think we should be annotating commits with phabricator code reviews in some way when a change has gone through that review. It is very useful to get back to the review details from the commit log message in svnweb, etc. I can see a number of different ways to do this, but I do think it would be nice to pick a consistent way to do it. Things to consider: 1) The tag ("CR:" is what I used above). I don't care, just pick one. I chose CR since Warner used it previously. Whatever we decide, we should add it to the template. 2) ID vs full URL. For PRs we just list the bug ID and not the full URL (same for Coverity). I would be fine with that so long as someone hacks up svnweb to convert the IDs into links (the way it handles PR bug numbers). OTOH, if you use the full URL you get that for free in svnweb, and you also get it in mail clients, etc. It helps that the URL isn't but so long. This is more of a pie-in-the-sky, but it would be _really_ nice if arcanist were hacked up to support our local commit template and would auto populate the 'Reviewed by' and 'CR' (or whatever it ends up being called) fields so one could use 'arc commit'. So what do folks prefer for 1) and 2)? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201407111238.23391.jhb>