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

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:17:47 -0700
>> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> 
>> > 
>> > Why aren't the entries there in chronological order?
> 
>> 
>> I tend to date ChangeLog entries with the day the patch was last
>> modified, not the day it was committed.
> 
> 
> 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.

Yes, Eli's correct. Allowing for timezones and approval latency a few 
days here or there is ok.

Anyway, this is why I personally adopted the convention:

2001-07-28  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

         Fix some PID/TPID fallout for HP/UX.
         From 2001-07-22 Rodney Brown <rbrown64@csc.com.au>:
         * infttrace.c (ptrace_wait): Match external declaration,
         and match target_post_wait declaration.

so that the original date and the time of commit are retained.  This 
isn't a GNU standard.

	Andrew