From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23700 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2004 10:11:19 -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 23686 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2004 10:11:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2004 10:11:16 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-13.inter.net.il [80.230.196.13]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DAG75915; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 13:11:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:11:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <9743-Sat05Jun2004130832+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: mec.gnu@mindspring.com, brobecker@gnat.com, hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40C0C01D.7080504@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:31:57 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Updates to Ada sources, part 1 (longish) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040603051228.E269F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <2914-Fri04Jun2004144147+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40C0C01D.7080504@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:31:57 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > That'd be fine with me, but I'd also suggest to have a pointer to > > ChangeLog.GNAT in gdb/ChangeLog, right where the import of Ada changes > > is recorded. Something like "See ChangeLog.GNAT for details of the > > changes." > > Please don't do this. ChangeLog.XXX is good for branches (as with even > readline/ChangeLog.gdb) but not for what is ment to be the mainline. I agree with the principle, but I don't think it is such a sacred one that would justify asking the GNAT people to invest such a large effort. We need the information to be there, and the suggested compromises achieve that with a reasonable effort. > The ChangeLog entry should provide a summary of what was added/changed > at this point in time - stuff like listing the new functions and summary > of changed functions. Can we do that? How many man-hours would you say is reasonable for such an effort? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Where, if at all, do we draw the line? > Much of the stuff in that GNAT ChangeLog will no longer be relevant. I understand that the problem is to translate the irrelevant suff into something that is relevant. I suggested that at first, but the GNAT people tell that it will take a lot of work. > I'm told Diego took rougly a day to prepare his tree-SSA ChangeLog entry. Who is Diego and how is the tree-SSA stuff relevant to our case?