From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4215 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2002 14:35:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4144 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2002 14:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2002 14:35:04 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24093F6A; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D528190.9080706@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:35:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020802 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdbserver/ChangeLog? References: <3D527C82.1040500@ges.redhat.com> <20020808141557.GA4426@nevyn.them.org> <3D527EB3.3020704@ges.redhat.com> <20020808142828.GA4893@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:22:43AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:13:22AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> > > >> >>Daniel, >> >> >> >>Should there be a gdbserver/ChangeLog? I was recently doing some code >> >>archology and was finding that the presence of gdbserver entries in >> >>gdb/ChangeLog was making things mighty confusing. Often the same >> >>function/variable appears but in a totally different context. > >> > >> > >> >Hmm, I think that's a good idea. Is it worth moving entries from the >> >old ChangeLogs, or just starting a new one for future changes? > >> >> The ``rewriting history'' problem. I don't know. >> >> I'm tempted with suggesting that entries in this years changelog being >> moved but I don't know how independant they are. > > > That sounds good to me. I'll give it a day or two and then move them > over. Hmm, a better starting point would be date the last branch was cut (which reminds me, the release process doesn't stamp the changelog when that is done ...). Otherwize a diff of the changelogs between two releases won't make much sense -> it will contain a lot of noise. The other more pragmatic aproach is to start it today, in 4 months, the problem will go away anyway. Andrew