From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19238 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2004 15:53:01 -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 19229 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2004 15:53:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Sep 2004 15:53:00 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8CFqtu2005237 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:52:55 -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 i8CFqsr08521; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:52:54 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E9428D2; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41447052.10605@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Hilfinger@CS.Berkeley.EDU Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] patch to remove language-dependent numeric output support References: <41425E6F.4050607@gnu.org> <200409110240.i8B2eXel018837@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <20040911035023.GA3631@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040911035023.GA3631@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:40:32PM -0700, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > >>> >>> > Just some notes though: >>> > > (local_decimal_format_custom): Remove. >>> > > >>> > > * utils.c: (int_string): New function. >>> > I suspect that the the blank lines aren't needed - blank lines separate >>> > commits rather than separate parts of the same commit - whichever. >>> >>> Really? OK. Actually, I was putting in blank lines just to break up >>> a long ChangeLog entry, but if there's actually a convention, I'm >>> happy to follow it. Near enough. Here's the exact text: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_42.html#SEC42 > Separate unrelated change log entries with blank lines. When two entries represent parts of the same change, so that they work together, then don't put blank lines between them. Then you can omit the file name and the asterisk when successive entries are in the same file. > FWIW, I've always used blank lines to separate logically distinct > portions of a changelog entry. I have no idea what the actual > convention is :-) Or this. It has the same effect - we never combine logically distinct changes into a single commit. Andrew