From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16969 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2005 22:28:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16959 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2005 22:28:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:28:26 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so264194nzd for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.74.2 with SMTP id w2mr3135504nza; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.6 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:28:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0512021428j17f2f169h23433cc4b2a2101b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 04:20:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [commit] Mention gdb-6.4 release in ChangeLog Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200512021843.jB2IhfYd004691@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051202073638.GK1215@adacore.com> <20051202135437.GB5478@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0512020927p2652a411v7c4aa8bf3815914f@mail.gmail.com> <20051202173036.GP1215@adacore.com> <200512021843.jB2IhfYd004691@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On 12/2/05, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I like it. I think I'd like to see the "GDB 6.4 branch made" bit also > on the branch, so I suggest to make that change just before branching. > The "Released on 2005-12-02" but can then later be added (and I think > only on the trunk). It would be nice to have the branchpoint indicated on the branch, too. But people do want to know release dates when looking on the branch, too. The specific maneuver you're suggesting, however, is impossible if you're doing a "post facto" branch, using -D; I know Andrew did this a few times, and I thought Joel was going to, too. Post-facto branching uses a non-HEAD revision as the branch point, so you'd have to modify history in order to get the ChangeLog entry in there before you branched. The hair here is the result of having two distinct "histories": the ChangeLog, and CVS.