From: Willy Tarreau Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:21 +0000 (+0100) Subject: DEV: patchbot: prepare for new version 3.2-dev X-Git-Tag: v3.2-dev1~88 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=eea2697e95acd5c48fa9bb8e8be8375fa1bf128f;p=thirdparty%2Fhaproxy.git DEV: patchbot: prepare for new version 3.2-dev The bot will now load the prompt for the upcoming 3.2 version so we have to rename the files and update their contents to match the current version. --- diff --git a/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-pfx.txt b/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-pfx.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..775d4cd344 --- /dev/null +++ b/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-pfx.txt @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +BEGININPUT +BEGINCONTEXT + +HAProxy's development cycle consists in one development branch, and multiple +maintenance branches. + +All the development is made into the development branch exclusively. This +includes mostly new features, doc updates, cleanups and or course, fixes. + +The maintenance branches, also called stable branches, never see any +development, and only receive ultra-safe fixes for bugs that affect them, +that are picked from the development branch. + +Branches are numbered in 0.1 increments. Every 6 months, upon a new major +release, the development branch enters maintenance and a new development branch +is created with a new, higher version. The current development branch is +3.2-dev, and maintenance branches are 3.1 and below. + +Fixes created in the development branch for issues that were introduced in an +earlier branch are applied in descending order to each and every version till +that branch that introduced the issue: 3.1 first, then 3.0, then 2.9, then 2.8 +and so on. This operation is called "backporting". A fix for an issue is never +backported beyond the branch that introduced the issue. An important point is +that the project maintainers really aim at zero regression in maintenance +branches, so they're never willing to take any risk backporting patches that +are not deemed strictly necessary. + +Fixes consist of patches managed using the Git version control tool and are +identified by a Git commit ID and a commit message. For this reason we +indistinctly talk about backporting fixes, commits, or patches; all mean the +same thing. When mentioning commit IDs, developers always use a short form +made of the first 8 characters only, and expect the AI assistant to do the +same. + +It seldom happens that some fixes depend on changes that were brought by other +patches that were not in some branches and that will need to be backported as +well for the fix to work. In this case, such information is explicitly provided +in the commit message by the patch's author in natural language. + +Developers are serious and always indicate if a patch needs to be backported. +Sometimes they omit the exact target branch, or they will say that the patch is +"needed" in some older branch, but it means the same. If a commit message +doesn't mention any backport instructions, it means that the commit does not +have to be backported. And patches that are not strictly bug fixes nor doc +improvements are normally not backported. For example, fixes for design +limitations, architectural improvements and performance optimizations are +considered too risky for a backport. Finally, all bug fixes are tagged as +"BUG" at the beginning of their subject line. Patches that are not tagged as +such are not bugs, and must never be backported unless their commit message +explicitly requests so. + +ENDCONTEXT + +A developer is reviewing the development branch, trying to spot which commits +need to be backported to maintenance branches. This person is already expert +on HAProxy and everything related to Git, patch management, and the risks +associated with backports, so he doesn't want to be told how to proceed nor to +review the contents of the patch. + +The goal for this developer is to get some help from the AI assistant to save +some precious time on this tedious review work. In order to do a better job, he +needs an accurate summary of the information and instructions found in each +commit message. Specifically he needs to figure if the patch fixes a problem +affecting an older branch or not, if it needs to be backported, if so to which +branches, and if other patches need to be backported along with it. + +The indented text block below after an "id" line and starting with a Subject line +is a commit message from the HAProxy development branch that describes a patch +applied to that branch, starting with its subject line, please read it carefully. + diff --git a/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-sfx.txt b/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-sfx.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..0ec66b475c --- /dev/null +++ b/dev/patchbot/prompts/prompt15-3.2-mist7bv2-sfx.txt @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ + +ENDINPUT +BEGININSTRUCTION + +You are an AI assistant that follows instruction extremely well. Help as much +as you can, responding to a single question using a single response. + +The developer wants to know if he needs to backport the patch above to fix +maintenance branches, for which branches, and what possible dependencies might +be mentioned in the commit message. Carefully study the commit message and its +backporting instructions if any (otherwise it should probably not be backported), +then provide a very concise and short summary that will help the developer decide +to backport it, or simply to skip it. + +Start by explaining in one or two sentences what you recommend for this one and why. +Finally, based on your analysis, give your general conclusion as "Conclusion: X" +where X is a single word among: + - "yes", if you recommend to backport the patch right now either because + it explicitly states this or because it's a fix for a bug that affects + a maintenance branch (3.1 or lower); + - "wait", if this patch explicitly mentions that it must be backported, but + only after waiting some time. + - "no", if nothing clearly indicates a necessity to backport this patch (e.g. + lack of explicit backport instructions, or it's just an improvement); + - "uncertain" otherwise for cases not covered above + +ENDINSTRUCTION + +Explanation: