Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 3/8

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Tuesday 28 April 2009 11:12:03, Hui Zhu wrote:

> 2009-03-21  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
> 
>        Process record and replay target.
> 
>        * Makefile.in (record.c): New file.
>        * record.c, record.h: New file.
> 
>        2008-12-28  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
>        * Comments, spelling, white space clean-ups.
> 
>        2008-12-26  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
>        * record.h: Don't export record_not_record.
>        * record.c (record_not_record): Rename to in_record_wait.
>        (record_not_record_set): Rename to in_record_wait_set.
>        (record_not_record_cleanup): Rename to in_record_wait_cleanup.
>        (record_store_registers): Check in_record_wait flag.
>        (record_xfer_partial): Ditto.
> 
...

Sorry that I have to be the nick-picky-guy again, but, as far as
I know and can see, we don't use that style of change log
entry covering the history of the changes that led to the current
form of the patch.  I know I've seen it before in *branches*,
but never on mainline's ChangeLog file.

The standard form of entry when more than one person did work on a
patch, is to append the name of the person in the header, like so:

2009-03-21  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
            Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>

	* Makefile.in (SFILES): Add record.c.
	(COMMON_OBS): Add record.o.
	* record.c, record.h: New files.

You'll find plenty examples of entries like that in the
ChangeLog files.

Would you mind making that change?  Thanks in advance.

BTW, notice that I've tweaked the Makefile.in entry a bit, to
more accurately describe the change being made.

-- 
Pedro Alves