Re: A small procedural request

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 <julian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> Hi,$B".(B I have a very small request to those committing into head.
> 
> If you commit a fix, then if it is possible to easily do so, can you 
> give the revision number in which the regression was introduced?
> 
> like "this was$B".(B 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_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
> 
> 


-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon_at_dec.sakura.ne.jp>