From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:16:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010819231747.A15746@nevyn.them.org> References: <3B7EAF09.4010801@cygnus.com> <3B7ED838.70607@cygnus.com> <9743-Sun19Aug2001093055+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3B80A35B.3060504@cygnus.com> <7263-Mon20Aug2001090940+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00228.html On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 09:09:41AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:42:51 -0400 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > As far as I know most of the patches going past at the moment are not > > going onto the branch(1). Hmm, quick check, I've attached a copy of the > > 5.1 ChangeLog. > > Thanks. > > Why aren't the entries there in chronological order? I tend to date ChangeLog entries with the day the patch was last modified, not the day it was committed. Do others prefer to keep the changelog dates relative to the day the source changed? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer