From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Kettenis To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:07:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3B7EAF09.4010801@cygnus.com> <3B7ED838.70607@cygnus.com> <9743-Sun19Aug2001093055+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3B80A35B.3060504@cygnus.com> <7263-Mon20Aug2001090940+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20010819231747.A15746@nevyn.them.org> <8011-Mon20Aug2001120810+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00230.html "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:17:47 -0700 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > Why aren't the entries there in chronological order? > > > > I tend to date ChangeLog entries with the day the patch was last > > modified, not the day it was committed. > > I think this is wrong: the logs should reflect the commit time, and if > they aren't chronologically increasing, it's hard to find a specific > entry and even harder to figure out which change came after which, > without resorting to CVS. Oh dear! It's the ChangeLog dating issue again. It is generally accepted among the GNU projects to date the entries with the day the patch was last modified. Which patch came after which is implied by the order in which the entries appear in the ChangeLog file. Mark