From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9096 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2004 19:10:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9077 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2004 19:10:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2004 19:10:09 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i54JA9i7013151 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:10:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i54JA8027142; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:10:08 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006102B9D; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C0C90C.7080108@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Updates to Ada sources, part 1 (longish) References: <20040603051228.E269F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <2914-Fri04Jun2004144147+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40C0C01D.7080504@gnu.org> <20040604183743.GL765@gnat.com> <20040604185549.GA11036@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040604185549.GA11036@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:37:43AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >>>> > The ChangeLog entry should provide a summary of what was added/changed >>>> > at this point in time - stuff like listing the new functions and summary >>>> > of changed functions. Can we do that? >> >>> >>> What I was saying was that it's going to be a non-trivial amount of time >>> to prepare that monster changelog entry. If you (the maintainers) think >>> it is necessary then, fine, we'll do it. But I'd much rather see this >>> time used to other things as I don't think the benefits of this >>> particular task will outweight the cost. But it's the maintainers call. > > > Personally, I don't think it's worthwhile. These files are still not > built in the FSF tree. Until they are, I think they have the moral > equivalent of a changelog entry that says "New file". Once they are > built, naturally, they'll be change controlled like anything else. > > Just my opinion. So lets delete them. Andrew