From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12272 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2014 01:41:20 -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 12253 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2014 01:41:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wi0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f179.google.com) (209.85.212.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:41:19 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hr1so3013544wib.0 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:41:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.99.74 with SMTP id eo10mr5508994wib.12.1389836476388; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:41:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.205.136 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:41:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201401151502.09189.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20140115121251.GM4639@adacore.com> <201401151212.43847.vapier@gentoo.org> <201401151502.09189.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git From: Fred Cooke To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00576.txt.bz2 Fair call, though the commit message format requirements might become a bit onerous if done this way, OR, generation might generate quite a few errors/misprints. I guess the rate of commits is pretty low, and commit size pretty big, on average, for binutils, though. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 15 January 2014 14:48:51 Fred Cooke wrote: >> I'd be with you, Mike, but these packages are regularly distributed >> without source control, as tarballs, and as such it's useful. > > i don't think it is, but let's assume you're right. there's no reason the > dist steps can't autogenerate a full ChangeLog from git history and throw it > into the tarball. it's what other GNU projects are doing now (like > coreutils). > -mike