From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: kettenis@science.uva.nl, 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: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:17:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B827B34.3080302@cygnus.com> 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> <2110-Tue21Aug2001094234+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00246.html > 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 The disadvantage I'm aware of occures when you're trying to determine if a specific change has been committed (I tend to be doing this a lot). The date (especially the pre ISO date which included the time) makes a really good identifying stamp. Per other e-mail, this is why I'll retain the date-stamp when committing a patch. I'll even occasionally do: > 2001-03-19 Andrew Cagney > > From Mon Nov 20 13:59:29 2000 Andrew Cagney : :-) Andrew