Re: [obv] Merge gdb/common/Changelog to gdb/ChangeLog [Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver]

Stan Shebs
2011-02-16T22:01:27Z

On 2/16/11 10:10 AM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>> On 2/15/11 5:34 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2011 05:15 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:37:39 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>>>> gdb/common/ does not have its own as you created, so far its
>>>>> entries are contained
>>>>> in gdb/ChangeLog, it should be merged to gdb/ChangeLog.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I do not see any comment today I will check it in.
>>>> Merged it, checked in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> common/ dir is to contain the common files for gdb and gdbserver, so it
>>> should have its own changelog file. IMO, we may have to revert this
>>> patch, what do you think?
>>>
>>
>> We've had at least semi-agreement for awhile that we should have
>> fewer ChangeLogs rather than more, but there's been less agreement on
>> when and how to merge the existing ones, so the situation is confusing.
>>
>> I suppose we want to treat pre-2011 change files as read-only, but
>> I'm wondering if an enterprising scripter could come up with a scheme
>> to pull all the 2011 change entries in subdirs into the main
>> gdb/ChangeLog, correctly interleaved and with subdirs added to
>> filenames...
>
> Really? Including testsuite and doc? That does not seem like an
> improvement to me....
>

But what actual problem does it present? Many patches have doc and
testsuite changes, and it would be helpful to see them all at once as
part of a change entry. (In fact, CodeSourcery has been doing exactly
this for its local changes.)

Ironically, the testsuite originally had a separate ChangeLog because
testsuites were packaged and distributed separately for some time. I
don't know why doc got its own ChangeLog, the 1991-era Cygnus might have
been considering a multi-tool doc-package scheme of some sort.

Stan