On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > In libvirt_private.syms, we have a policy of keeping blocks of symbols > sorted by name - in fact, we enforce it during 'make check' with our > check-symsorting rule calling out to a perl script. But > libvirt_public.syms has been more cavalier over the years. > > 21 releases have been trivially sorted due to adding only one symbol; > while the following 27 releases listed multiple symbols in > alphabetical order, even if the symbols were not chronologically added > in that order [1]: > > 0.0.3 0.9.5 1.1.0 > 0.3.0 0.9.7 1.1.1 > 0.3.3 0.9.8 1.2.5 > 0.4.2 0.9.9 1.2.8 > 0.6.3 0.9.10 1.2.11 > 0.7.5 0.9.13 1.2.15 > 0.9.0 1.0.1 1.3.3 > 0.9.2 1.0.2 3.1.0 > 0.9.3 1.0.3 3.4.0 > > [1] Case study: git log -p v0.9.9..v0.9.10 src/libvirt_public.syms > shows 9 commits adding 9 APIs among 7 authors: > 0b7ddf9e - trivially in order > adb99a05 - appending happened to also be sorted order > 1f7aa0ac - irrelevant (removing TABs, not adding symbol) > 6714fd04 - added in sorted order > 8f8b0802 - appended, out of order > e1eea747 - re-sorted previous addition, and added in sorted order > 02af3e13 - added in sorted order > c471e55e - added in sorted order > 99fd69c3 - added in sorted order > > The following patch changes the remaining 37 releases to do likewise, > and documents the practice. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I'm not sure if we want this patch - it got much bigger than I was > expecting. 37 releases is less than half of the total versions in the > file, but larger than the number of releases that were sorted (where > it is not even obvious if that was always intentional or by luck). We > could also decide to adopt a policy of listing symbols in the same > order as remote_protocol.x (although not all symbols go over RPC), but > that seems like it would be even more churn and harder to enforce. > > Ideally, if we DO want this patch, we should also teach 'make check' > via src/check-symsorting.pl how to enforce it on the public file; as I > did not do that, this is marked RFC. I've no objection to sorting the public sym file. If we do this though, I'd consider check-symsorting.pl to be a must have. Too much liklihood of regression if we rely on reviewers catching it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
