From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4775 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2014 15:50:09 -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 4667 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2014 15:50:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.220.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:50:06 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hq11so36718vcb.39 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=98avQTLhC8FNELwBMcw/ctpbzZ6AaQ6HpYgXHuKorVo=; b=BJkoZNVf14QOsIesfCyUi9rZHSyIeYBfCor9LnZjLA9SOfWs84vwyhnZFQKiSYdsKS OXKIbNxXRhZoJuPb+WArfh1arL4V2Vl+OM6ZhdY2Km91/N3um7RUcYGn0JFTuKeh7z1Z Uvr/G1p2EBcd133hijYNA750U1CQ46XElLMMCY+JHRn0nEi83wLez7itSnlTeeCTWrsy AQpO/OVOuhkm0XqX9dKsmZwvj1hSSVLlp3nJIzp4Yliykzr5pbr13tmezzEdPXGZznxt xrGl4h9auaB/rvXd70fIpwFe2ePuOyK92qtLblzgD9jDBfoxS4LPRxSCyij8S+LHAYoC Oufw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn70aSZhLVugsvtYWbDrUcQnDM+2dscwTRMCEI+DPeizV8M2CRq8tm39+HRJhaWKq5+Kc28 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.165.13 with SMTP id yu13mr8514992vdb.67.1410882604175; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.65 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140916093120.GA32511@blade.nx> References: <20140814083231.GA6283@blade.nx> <20140814125224.GF4924@adacore.com> <54102ED8.7060307@redhat.com> <20140910162853.GT13931@adacore.com> <20140915102949.GC13503@blade.nx> <20140915160545.GN4962@adacore.com> <20140916093120.GA32511@blade.nx> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ChangeLogs in commit messages From: Doug Evans To: Gary Benson Cc: Joel Brobecker , Pedro Alves , gdb , Andreas Arnez Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Doug Evans wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> > > There's still something missing (IIUC). >> > > One of the problems that needs to be solved is documenting the >> > > author in the patch submission (the email that goes to the >> > > list). The above convention allows for a default where the >> > > absence of a name means author == committer, but we're still not >> > > specifying an absolute requirement that the patch author appears >> > > in the email sent to the list. >> > > Am I missing something? >> > >> > I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say: You are now >> > establishing that there are 3 users, not 2. author, submitter, and >> > committer. Why do we need the submitter's name in the revision >> > log? >> >> We don't need the submitter's name in the revision log. I was >> referring to the patch author appearing in the email sent to the >> list. >> >> Pedro wrote "I think author info must be explicit in patch submissions >> somehow." >> ref: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2014-09/msg00038.html >> Read the full text of 00038 for more context. >> >> I agree. >> >> The changes specified in >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2014-09/msg00052.html >> do not address this, yet in the text of that email (00052) >> Pedro's comment is included (again, ref: 00052). > > We inline the ChangeLog entries in the patch submission emails, eg > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00286.html > so the optional author lines would be inlined right there. I don't understand. The ChangeLog diff is not included in the "patch" in 00286 and unless things have changed recently we still discourage that. So for the nonce I'm going to assume you're not talking about adding ChangeLog diffs to patches (though that would solve the problem of making the author explicit - I'm not suggesting this as a solution though). I guess I still don't see how this proposed change makes author specification *explicit* in patch submissions, unless you are also saying that the absence of author info means the patch submitter is the author. This might be ok, but that's not a definition of "explicit" that I've been employing here. And it is a departure from how patches have been submitted in the past where the full changelog entry is always cut-n-pasted to the top of the patch and it includes author info. Has your definition of the word "explicit" been different than mine?