From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6918 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2014 17:47:16 -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 6905 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2014 17:47:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 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-f171.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f171.google.com) (209.85.220.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:47:14 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id im17so3764551vcb.2 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:47:12 -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=aOcbsHwGw99vpk9cvVafB0CJRuBNABncobPjXyRREdA=; b=fwgM+stN21zxkNNquP9miAKjAo9zkLQAHVOyqkPW4bI2OOH+JA7Bggug0mQ6gb48t4 uDpyRqXCZBgcDPYzrkadgW+bOidilbnlAUVZr7Z3Py38aOUfOLWbe9t0To9MaPf5SIac tZDNPywxWFtHAPM0I+SX0WQlCjTPZA/kMGio1AHiRvyjBpmcRzzuTYQBykIGQJWxBRcw twNdaJFTDuuM/l+VRSN8jK1FrvZiA+I3vmIolccQ27wEqVDdB0aNlvbHGXYLYojZVHlR 9chzZ0EAOP5QrFdasUSUxWWCRMAyV26Ch1YxAry+c6HJDp5z9bmBKXdUVqBKenUxd+3j 9ADQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDBqgixKizZshLj0nQ4wcaQvS4kGEYKECDczdZ3NzW553qFlOSNbidcp8xYyNh7qd8iZTv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.168.210 with SMTP id v18mr24298936vcy.3.1410803232406; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.65 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:47:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140915160545.GN4962@adacore.com> 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> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ChangeLogs in commit messages From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Gary Benson , Pedro Alves , gdb , Andreas Arnez Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 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). Therefore ISTM there is still something missing. We still haven't solved the problem of providing a convention where the author is explicitly specified in patch submissions. 00052 allows for a default where author == committer. But on the patch submission side it's not clear to me we want a default of patch author == patch submitter. [btw, given that the "convention allows for a default where the absence of names means author == committer" I'm ok with the proposed change to the commit log since in general it won't mean more manual effort.] I'm just pointing out that, unless I'm missing something, we still need to document a convention where patch author is explicitly specified in patch submissions. If I still haven't made myself clear let me know. I'm happy to elaborate as necessary.