From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11026 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 16:17:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 11012 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 16:17:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:17:03 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-141-251.inter.net.il [80.230.141.251]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id HTD87134 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 19:13:51 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20070908134613.GA27737@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:46:13 -0400) Subject: Re: [5/9] Associate parsed condition with location Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200709080042.24484.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20070908134613.GA27737@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:46:13 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 03:17:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > We only need the function names, that's all. A year from now, someone > > who will want to find out when this change was done in one of those > > functions, will grep the ChangeLog's for the function's name. > > I don't think this is necessary, and it's definitely not customary. It's never late to start making good log entries. > Here's two of the examples from the GNU Coding Standards. Re "Likewise": > > * register.el (insert-register): Return nil. > (jump-to-register): Likewise. > > > And for large mechanical changes: > > When you change the calling sequence of a function in a simple fashion, > and you change all the callers of the function to use the new calling > sequence, there is no need to make individual entries for all the > callers that you changed. Just write in the entry for the function > being called, ``All callers changed''---like this: Are we up to a quoting contest? How about this one: It's important to name the changed function or variable in full. Don't abbreviate function or variable names, and don't combine them. Subsequent maintainers will often search for a function name to find all the change log entries that pertain to it; if you abbreviate the name, they won't find it when they search. Omitting function names is certainly not helpful when searching for them in the logs. Also, note the condition: ``when you change the calling sequence of a function in a simple fashion''. I don't think this is our case here. The changes are not mechanical, either. But I'm used to be voted down here lately; time for some soul-searching (and this time of year is actually perfect for that, if you know what I mean).