From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32719 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2004 04:41:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32695 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2004 04:41:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2004 04:41:00 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 1967A47D6B; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Updates to Ada sources, part 1 (longish) Message-ID: <20040603044100.GJ2319@gnat.com> References: <20040602100245.BFFC7F282B@nile.gnat.com> <3405-Thu03Jun2004070026+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040603041558.GI2319@gnat.com> <9003-Thu03Jun2004072802+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9003-Thu03Jun2004072802+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 > ``Tough'' because of the sheer volume of changes, or for some other > reason? (I understand that you didn't keep the logs of the changes > internally, is that right?) Just sheer volume. We have kept our own changelog of changes (see gdb/ChangeLog.GNAT which can be fetched via anonymous CVS at libre.act-europe.fr), but just copy-pasting them wouldn't help, because all these changes overlap. So we would have to write a sumary of the changes we made in the past 2+ years after reading the patch. I think it's going to be a lot of work doing that. > Anyway, I realize that it would be a lot of work to write all the > entries now (although it's almost mechanichal work), but perhaps at > least the major changes could be described for specific functions, and > new functions could be described as such? It's the maintainers call. If you think we should do it, we'll do it. But I personally think this is going to be time wasted. We've tried to be careful to put the explantations as to why we are doing such and such things directly in the code, and we will be happy to add more comments in the sources if there are places where it would be useful. -- Joel