From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28705 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2009 01:43:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 28694 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2009 01:43:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.188) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:43:42 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so80849tib.12 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:43:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.21.17 with SMTP id 17mr572450tiu.5.1240969419623; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:43:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200904282255.35290.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <200904282255.35290.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 3/8 From: Hui Zhu To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:55, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 11:12:03, Hui Zhu wrote: > >> 2009-03-21 =A0Hui Zhu =A0 >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Process record and replay target. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* Makefile.in (record.c): New file. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* record.c, record.h: New file. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02008-12-28 =A0Michael Snyder =A0 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* Comments, spelling, white space clean-ups. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02008-12-26 =A0Michael Snyder =A0 >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* record.h: Don't export record_not_record. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* record.c (record_not_record): Rename to in_record_wait. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(record_not_record_set): Rename to in_record_wait_set. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(record_not_record_cleanup): Rename to in_record_wait_cle= anup. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(record_store_registers): Check in_record_wait flag. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(record_xfer_partial): Ditto. >> > ... > > Sorry that I have to be the nick-picky-guy again, but, as far as > I know and can see, we don't use that style of change log > entry covering the history of the changes that led to the current > form of the patch. =A0I know I've seen it before in *branches*, > but never on mainline's ChangeLog file. > > The standard form of entry when more than one person did work on a > patch, is to append the name of the person in the header, like so: > > 2009-03-21 =A0Hui Zhu =A0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Michael Snyder =A0 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* Makefile.in (SFILES): Add record.c. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(COMMON_OBS): Add record.o. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* record.c, record.h: New files. > > You'll find plenty examples of entries like that in the > ChangeLog files. > > Would you mind making that change? =A0Thanks in advance. Of course you are not the nick-picky-guy. You give me a lot of help to make process record better. :) Your comment about the changelog is very well. I will change all changelog like it. 2009-04-29 Hui Zhu Michael Snyder Process record and replay target. * Makefile.in (SFILES): Add record.c. (COMMON_OBS): Add record.o. * record.c, record.h: New file. Thanks, Hui