From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9320 invoked by alias); 21 May 2008 04:06:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 9312 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2008 04:06:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 04:06:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F89B2A9839; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2ze9-LAwqRm1; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A5D2A9772; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B5121E7ACD; Tue, 20 May 2008 21:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:14:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Roberts Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] New annotation for threads Message-ID: <20080521040631.GD4080@adacore.com> References: <18458.23326.25887.70597@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18478.48682.13900.951343@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18479.62120.536436.427524@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080520035226.GA4669@adacore.com> <20080520182401.GA3895@adacore.com> <20080521033025.GB4080@adacore.com> <18483.40191.440902.286889@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18483.40191.440902.286889@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 > > But I think that asking someone to follow this rule is reasonable given > > the little amount of extra work that it requires. I would also suggest > > that emacs be fixed to follow the GCS. > > Presumably that would require Emacs to judge whether changes were related or > not. THat would be a nice feature! I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that changes inside the same ChangeLog entry are much more likely to be related than not. It would probably be more efficient if emacs did not automatically add that empty line. It won't be right 100% of the time, but it should be most of the time. -- Joel