Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?
Peter B. Kessler
Peter.Kessler at Sun.COM
Mon Nov 5 22:46:07 PST 2007
One comment, inline.
iris.clark at sun.com wrote:
> As you know, the experimental OpenJDK repositories for JDK 7 are
> available . In anticipation of getting the repositories live, we
> need to decide what our convention for changeset comments should be.
> The required format of the comments will be enforced whenever the
> changeset is pushed into the JDK 6/7 master or group repository
> forests. Other Projects may copy these conventions, adopt some other
> conventions, or have no conventions, depending upon their goals.
> In the old system, depending on the group integration tree, several
> formats were in use. Here's the common information:
> - name of the person making the change
> - bugid (a 7-digit number allocated by the Sun bug database)
> - complete synopsis of the bug
> - comma-separated list of reviewers of the change (typically
> either username or e-mail address)
> Optional information which appears in some trees includes:
> - information about existenace or feasibility of regression/unit
> - pointer to associated webrev
> - list of approvals
> - contributor acknowledgements
> Though we expect most changesets to contain updates for a single bug,
> our convention should easily accommodate changesets involving multiple
> bugs. Based on informal discussions, here's a potential format:
> The number of lines in the changeset is equal to the number of bugs.
> For each bug, there is a line of the following form:
> <id>: <synopsis> [<reviewer>*]
> <id> - a 7-digit bugid allocated by the Sun bug database
> <synposis> - the complete synposis for the bugid
> <reviewer>* - a comma separated list of reviewers of the change
> (repository userid)
> The name of the person submitting the change is the user who created
> the changeset.
> For example:
> 4853841: Nervous text demo displays wrong version [iris, duke]
> This covers the common information but is that sufficient? I think
> that the optional information regarding testing, webrev, and approvals
> should be contained in the bug, but what about contributor
While I would ordinarily agree with you that the optional information
should be in the bug report, until we provide write access to our bug
database to all our Members, there won't be a convenient way for them
to add those things. I think we are stuck with changeset comments for
the time being.
> Perhaps something along these lines is more
> For each bug there is a block of the following form:
> <id>: <synopsis>
> Review: <reviewer>*
> Credit: <acknowledgement>*
> <id>, <synopsis>, <reviewers>
> - described above
> - arbitrary string of contributor acknowledgments
> The first two lines are required. The third is optional. The name
> of the person submitting the change is user who created the
> For example:
> 4853841: Nervous text demo displays wrong version
> Review: iris, duke
> Credit: mr - for extending the demo to accept arguments
> I favor the compactness of the first format; but the second is more
> extensible and gives us a simple means to recognise key contributions
> besides simple authorship or review.
> What do you think?
>  http://hg.openjdk.java.net
More information about the discuss