From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6065 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 02:06:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 6056 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 02:06:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:06:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 11859 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2011 02:06:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Feb 2011 02:06:41 -0000 Message-ID: <4D5C82AE.2040807@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:03:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [obv] Merge gdb/common/Changelog to gdb/ChangeLog [Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver] References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <4D34C9DE.3040603@codesourcery.com> <4D375F44.70504@codesourcery.com> <20110215133739.GA14877@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20110215211537.GA20962@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4D5B2999.5010906@codesourcery.com> <4D5B74E0.10102@codesourcery.com> <4D5C1329.50603@vmware.com> <4D5C29A4.2080403@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 On 02/17/2011 03:55 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Anyway, common will definitely be part of gdb, at least from my point of > view. gdb won't build without it. Changes in common will require > changes in gdb. Plus, it is in a subdirectory of gdb. Yes, common is not only part of gdb, but also part of gdbserver. My original logic is that "since gdb and gdbserver has its own changelog, common, as a common part of both, _should_ have its own changelog. Changes in common should affect both". Taking the semi-agreement Stan mentioned into account, I am OK to leave common change entries in gdb/ChangeLog -- Yao (齐尧)