From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9815 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2014 13:15:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9757 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2014 13:15:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:15:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7EDFVrg027945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:15:31 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-116.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.116]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7EDFUCB010601; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:15:30 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2616B2640EA; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:15:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:15:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Andreas Arnez Subject: Re: ChangeLogs in commit messages Message-ID: <20140814131530.GB12746@blade.nx> References: <20140814083231.GA6283@blade.nx> <20140814125224.GF4924@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140814125224.GF4924@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 1. With paths and with the date-and-author header: > > > > gdb/ > > 2014-07-30 Gary Benson > > > > * btrace.c: Include defs.h. > > * common/ptid.c: Include defs.h or server.h as appropriate. > > * nat/mips-linux-watch.c: Likewise. > > > > 2. With date-and-author headers but no paths: > > > > 2014-08-04 Tom Tromey > > > > * gdb.base/sss-bp-on-user-bp-2.exp: Match "to_resume", not > > "target_resume". > > > > 3. With paths but no date-and-author headers: > > > > gdb/ChangeLog: > > > > * amd64-windows-tdep.c (amd64_windows_frame_decode_insns): > > Add debug trace. > > > > 4. With no preamble at all: > > > > * chew.c (print_stack_level, main): Cast result of pointer > > difference to match format string. > > > > What are people's preferences here? My preference is #1, but I > > could live with #3. If we come to some kind of concensus on this > > I'll update the wiki to reflect this. > > #3, since date and author are often redundant with the commit's > author. And even if not in the same, it's in the ChangeLog entry > that should be checked in as part of the commit. Also, I feel like > having those in the CL is an extra source of potential issue (eg: > if forgot to update the date), and revision logs cannot be fixed > once the commit has been pushed, whereas dates in ChangeLog entries > can. My concern with omitting the author-and-date is for commits with multiple authors, and/or multiple commits that have been squashed with git-rebase (which uses the date and author of the commit that was "pick"ed rather than that of other commits that were "squash"ed or "fixup"ed into it. For example: commit 314c6a3559393741f22fdd9836f83d9f364fbd2a Author: Tom Tromey Date: Fri Jun 13 09:22:09 2014 -0600 Make gdbserver CORE_ADDR unsigned gdbserver defines CORE_ADDR to be signed. This seems erroneous to me; and furthermore likely to cause problems in common/, as it is different from gdb's definition. gdb/gdbserver/ 2014-07-24 Tom Tromey Gary Benson * server.h (CORE_ADDR): Now unsigned. This commit came from a half-finished branch Tom started back in January. I picked it up June or so, updated/tidied it a bit and submitted it for review. It was pushed on July 24 but the date on the commit is June 13. I think most people use rebase eventually, so this kind of thing is pretty common. The multiple authors things is less common but not unique. Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/