From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: kettenis@science.uva.nl Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:43:00 -0000 Message-id: <2110-Tue21Aug2001094234+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <3B7EAF09.4010801@cygnus.com> <3B7ED838.70607@cygnus.com> <9743-Sun19Aug2001093055+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3B80A35B.3060504@cygnus.com> <7263-Mon20Aug2001090940+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20010819231747.A15746@nevyn.them.org> <8011-Mon20Aug2001120810+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00233.html > From: Mark Kettenis > 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.