From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: drow@mvista.com
Cc: 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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 02:09:00 -0000
Message-id: <8011-Mon20Aug2001120810+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
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>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00229.html

> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:17:47 -0700
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > 
> > Why aren't the entries there in chronological order?
> 
> I tend to date ChangeLog entries with the day the patch was last
> modified, not the day it was committed.

I think this is wrong: the logs should reflect the commit time, and if
they aren't chronologically increasing, it's hard to find a specific
entry and even harder to figure out which change came after which,
without resorting to CVS.