This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp
> From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@science.uva.nl>
> Date: 21 Aug 2001 00:06:14 +0200
> >
> > I think this is wrong: the logs should reflect the commit time, and if
> > they aren't chronologically increasing, it's hard to find a specific
> > entry and even harder to figure out which change came after which,
> > without resorting to CVS.
>
> Oh dear! It's the ChangeLog dating issue again.
Sorry to raise that again, but I don't think I ever saw this being
discussed since the time I became involved with GDB. If this has been
beaten to death, it should probably be spelled out in the coding
conventions docs. Did I miss it?
> It is generally
> accepted among the GNU projects to date the entries with the day the
> patch was last modified.
Which GNU projects are those? Emacs is not one of them: they take
great care there to have all the entries labeled by the commit date.
> Which patch came after which is implied by
> the order in which the entries appear in the ChangeLog file.
That order can be messed up by snafus such as CVS conflicts etc.
Why is it such a problem to label the entries with the date when the
change is committed? I don't see any disadvantages to this, only
advantages.