From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Feb 21 11:14:16 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A74CF1FFE9 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:14:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from dec.sakura.ne.jp (dec.sakura.ne.jp [210.188.226.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C2173598 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:14:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from fortune.joker.local (124-18-70-98.dz.commufa.jp [124.18.70.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by dec.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2/[SAKURA-WEB]/20080708) with ESMTPA id w1LBE6OW073169 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:14:06 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:14:05 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A small procedural request Message-Id: <20180221201405.4c0b1262e2f239616120869a@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <1ec9ccb4-0f0e-e525-4ce8-71d9d34172ae@freebsd.org> References: <1ec9ccb4-0f0e-e525-4ce8-71d9d34172ae@freebsd.org> Organization: Junchoon corps X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; amd64-portbld-freebsd11.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:14:16 -0000 Hi. +1. But have one suggestion for format. Something like Broken by: rXXXXXXX Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown) and optionally Broken by: No (To emphasize it's NOT a bugfix.) would be better for scripts already handling "MFC after: " or "X-MFC-With: " etc. to support this. If put on the top with "MFC rXXXXXX: Comments", it can be FIX rXXXXXX: Comments or for multiple revisions, FIX rXXXXXX rYYYYYY rZZZZZZ: Comments for multiple individuals FIX rXXXXXX-rYYYYYY: Comments for massive continuous range would be better. Regards. On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:33 +0800 Julian Elischer wrote: > Hi,〓 I have a very small request to those committing into head. > > If you commit a fix, then if it is possible to easily do so, can you > give the revision number in which the regression was introduced? > > like "this was〓 broken in r329xxx" > > this allows people who are looking for specific problems to say "Ok > that bug was introduced after the snapshot I'm working on and can't be > my issue". > > (we are not always working on the very tip). > > > thanks > > Julian > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- Tomoaki AOKI