From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12946 invoked by alias); 20 May 2013 14:44:48 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 12935 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2013 14:44:47 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 14:44:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4KEiist022066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:44 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4KEih1X017644; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:43 -0400 Message-ID: <519A36DA.3060009@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:44:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: GDB Patches Subject: Re: contribution checklist in the wiki References: <51965CE3.4020805@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00728.txt.bz2 On 05/20/2013 11:21 AM, Hui Zhu wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > Thanks for you works. > > > I have a question about format of changelog: > 2013-12-12 John Doe > > PR gdb/9999 > > * breakpoint.c (handle_some_event): Remove reference to wrap at or before column 79> > > If I remember is right, some people told me that there should not have > a empty line after "PR xxx". > And I checked the changelog, some of them have empty line and others don't have. > > So does it need a empty line after "PR xxx"? > Thanks for raising this. Doug expressed a preference for not having the empty line too off-list. I've now removed it from the wiki. I've been adding it, as to me it visually indicated the different areas - the "why/PR" area vs the "what" area. Skimming through the entries, it seems I was practically alone though. :-) I'll stop adding it from here on. > > And I have another question is about [RFC]. Where should it be sent > to, gdb or gdb-patches? Good question. I assume you mean an RFC without a patch. I think that boils down to, what are really gdb's and gdb-patches's scopes. Comparing to GCC, they have: #1 gcc-help - a list for end users of gcc. #2 gcc - a list for discussions on the development of gcc itself #3 gcc-patches - a list for patches We have gdb and gdb-patches, but no gdb-help. (And bug-gdb@gnu.org, but I think most gdb developers don't even subscribe it...) I think gdb@ fills both roles of #1 and a little of #2 (wrt to user visible changes), while gdb-patches@ the roles of both #2 and #3. We tend to leave RFC discussions of gdb's internals on the gdb-patches list, while RFC proposals that might affect user interface changes, RSP changes, python API extensions, etc. are best done on the gdb@ list, which has more end users and frontend developers in it, who we'll want to hear input from. Exactly because gdb@ has many end users on it who don't care about gdb's internals as long as it works, I personally (and I suspect that's what others feel too) don't send RFCs about GDB internals there, but instead I'll send them to gdb-patches@, because that's the list that has all the people that care about gdb development. This very thread being an example. IOW, gdb-patches - the list all gdb developers should be on. gdb - the end list users are on. Given there's no separate developer list, a list developers should be on too. So in a nutshell, use some judgment, and choose where to send the RFC to depending on the target audience, and on whether you're requesting comments on large visible user interface changes (-> gdb@) or on gdb's internals (-> gdb-patches@). That's my view anyhow. Might be others see things a little different. If we reach some sort of consensus, we could put it somewhere in the wiki. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves