Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>]

> From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@science.uva.nl>
> Date: 21 Aug 2001 00:06:14 +0200
> > 
> > I think this is wrong: the logs should reflect the commit time, and if
> > they aren't chronologically increasing, it's hard to find a specific
> > entry and even harder to figure out which change came after which,
> > without resorting to CVS.
> 
> Oh dear!  It's the ChangeLog dating issue again.

Sorry to raise that again, but I don't think I ever saw this being
discussed since the time I became involved with GDB.  If this has been
beaten to death, it should probably be spelled out in the coding
conventions docs.  Did I miss it?

> It is generally
> accepted among the GNU projects to date the entries with the day the
> patch was last modified.

Which GNU projects are those?  Emacs is not one of them: they take
great care there to have all the entries labeled by the commit date.

> Which patch came after which is implied by
> the order in which the entries appear in the ChangeLog file.

That order can be messed up by snafus such as CVS conflicts etc.

Why is it such a problem to label the entries with the date when the
change is committed?  I don't see any disadvantages to this, only
advantages.