From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10182 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2004 23:15:14 -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 10175 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2004 23:15:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2004 23:15:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698C3F2A14; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17782-01-9; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id 1A979F2C05; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Hilfinger To: eliz@gnu.org Cc: cagney@gnu.org, mec.gnu@mindspring.com, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <2427-Sat05Jun2004190137+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Updates to Ada sources, part 1 (longish) References: <20040603051228.E269F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <2914-Fri04Jun2004144147+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40C0C01D.7080504@gnu.org> <9743-Sat05Jun2004130832+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40C1CB8E.7080108@gnu.org> <2427-Sat05Jun2004190137+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Message-Id: <20040605231512.1A979F2C05@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 23:15:00 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 > I would even be happy if the contributor would do that when prompted > (I prompted them to begin with, remember?). > > However, I'm not sure we should insist on this given the contributor's > reluctance to do that, when prompted. It is IMHO enough to have the > required information readily available in the distribution; a separate > file will achieve just that. > > > We're talking an hour or perhaphs two > > How is this consistent with the fact that tree-SSA merge required a > full day of work to prepare the log entries? We seem to have started somewhat more of a debate than we intended here. Our main reluctance about "preparing a full ChangeLog entry" was simply that it was not at all clear what this meant. Redacting each of our entries (going back to March 1997) so as to remove irrelevant items---which is one interpretation of "complete ChangeLog"---seemed a totally pointless waste of time. If what Andrew wants is a list of exported functions, or even a list of all functions in the ada* files, we can certainly provide that. If he wants ChangeLog entries for differences between the old versions of the ada* files in the CVS repository and the ones we just deposited, we can provide that easily enough also (it would simply be a redacted version of our own change log entries going back to the time we deposited those files). In that case, Andrew, am I to understand that you don't care about our internal change history prior to that point? Paul Hilfinger