From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21080 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2007 18:11:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 21069 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2007 18:11:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:11:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 2006 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2007 18:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Nov 2007 18:11:15 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Cleanup pending breakpoints floatsam References: <200711081155.47340.ghost@cs.msu.su> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Vladimir Prus's message of "Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:44:46 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 Vladimir Prus writes: > Jim Blandy wrote: > >> >> Vladimir Prus writes: >>> After pending breakpoints were changed for better, a number of >>> functions have 'pending_bp' parameter that is not used in any >>> way. This patch removes it. OK? >>> >>> (I'll write ChangeLog entry if this patch is approved) >> >> Looks good to me; please commit. > > Thanks. The final patch with changelog is attached. > >> (This patch was mechanical and touched a number of functions, so I can >> understand why you'd rather put off writing the ChangeLog entry for >> it. But in general, a patch should be posted with a ChangeLog entry: >> it helps reviewers understand the patch, and of course the entry is >> subject to review itself.) > > It's this a bit too pedantic, for this case? This is as mechanical patch > as it can get, so ChangeLog won't have much value in understanding the patch. What I meant was, in this case it's not a problem, for just the reason you say. But in general, patches should include ChangeLog entries when posted for review.