Format for JDK 6/7 changeset comments?

[Neo Jia]

Probably, my following questions are not that related with the
description of a changeset.

How many status can a changeset have? "new", "pending" and
"submitted"? Will there be a state for review? For example, in that
state, the committer cannot make changes any more. And he/she has to
use another changeset to re-work his/her changes.

How many files could we edit by a changeset? No restrictions or something else?

Just want to bring up some general rules to use the changeset.

Thanks,
Neo

On 11/5/07, iris.clark at sun.com <iris.clark at sun.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As you know, the experimental OpenJDK repositories for JDK 7 are
> available [1].  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
>     tests
>   - 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>*]
>
>   where
>
>     <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
> acknowledgements?  Perhaps something along these lines is more
> suitable:
>
>   For each bug there is a block of the following form:
>
>     <id>: <synopsis>
>     Review: <reviewer>*
>     Credit: <acknowledgement>*
>
>   where
>
>      <id>, <synopsis>, <reviewers>
>                 - described above
>      <acknowledgement>
>                 - 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
>   changeset.
>
>   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?
>
> Thanks,
> iris
>
> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net
>
>


-- 
I would remember that if researchers were not ambitious
probably today we haven't the technology we are using!