threads / discuss / 59120

Is GGG mislabeling topics?

Subject: Is GGG mislabeling topics?

## tl;dr

3 messages between Jan 19, 2023 and Feb 2, 2023.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Junio C Hamano· Jan 19, 2023, 17:32 UTC · lore

These comments from GGG bot

    https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386301994
    https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386302018

add 'next' and 'seen' labels, citing merges e3ead5f and c52b021 respectively, but these merges are of a topic that has little to do with this pull request (#1435). Is this expected?

Johannes Schindelin· Feb 2, 2023, 14:20 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: Is GGG mislabeling topics?

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> These comments from GGG bot
>
>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386301994
>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386302018
>
> add 'next' and 'seen' labels, citing merges e3ead5f and c52b021
> respectively, but these merges are of a topic that has little to do
> with this pull request (#1435).  Is this expected?

Since I could not make `amlog` work reliably for GitGitGadget (and you will recall that it was not for lack of trying, not by _any_ stretch of imagination, I really, really put in a few weeks and it just turned out that there was no way to come up with a 100% correct record of mappings between patches on the Git mailing list and the commits in git/git), the best I could do was to use `range-diff` to identify which patches made it upstream, and what the upstream OIDs are.

What you see in action is that this is imperfect. Because in the absence of actual git/git commits that correspond to the GitGitGadget Pull Requests' commits, `range-diff` will even identify replacements or alternative patches as the git/git commits corresponding to the PR.

I don't see how this could be made robust without forcing you to adopt different processes than you are using right now.

Ciao, Johannes

Junio C Hamano· Feb 2, 2023, 17:06 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore

Re: Is GGG mislabeling topics?

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> These comments from GGG bot
>>
>>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386301994
>>     https://github.com/git/git/pull/1435#issuecomment-1386302018
>>
>> add 'next' and 'seen' labels, citing merges e3ead5f and c52b021
>> respectively, but these merges are of a topic that has little to do
>> with this pull request (#1435).  Is this expected?
>
> Since I could not make `amlog` work reliably for GitGitGadget ...

"git rev-list e3ead5f^..e3ead5f" (as the comment claims that GGG saw e3ead5f merged this topic) should be able to identify the individual commits merged, in this case three topmost commits from Peff leading to 6c065f72 (http: support CURLOPT_PROTOCOLS_STR, 2023-01-16).

> What you see in action is that this is imperfect. Because in the absence
> of actual git/git commits that correspond to the GitGitGadget Pull
> Requests' commits, `range-diff` will even identify replacements or
> alternative patches as the git/git commits corresponding to the PR.

Hmph, so the three topmost commits were mistaken to match the patch(es) on this branch. That's sort-of understandable but not very satisfactory.

And amlog seems to know the message ID that resulted in that topmost commit that was merged to 'next'.

    $ git notes --ref notes/amlog show e3ead5f^2
    Message-Id: <Y8YQUD8bMHc4Lmph@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Perhaps GGG can be told to recognise that it is not one of the messages it sent out before, or something?