Re: Fortran patch committed during freeze

[Bernhard Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>]

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:24:13PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
>Roger Sayle wrote:
>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>>However, please be mindful of the release branch freeze state in future.
>>
>>One comment I would make though, is how difficult it is to discover
>>the 4.1 branch's current status.  Neither the main page's "Current release
>>status" at http://gcc.gnu.org/ nor the most recently linked to status
>>e-mail from that page explicitly mention the/a freeze.  When
>>reviewing/approving a recent regression patch I had to infer that since
>>there was mention of a release candidate but there hadn't been a full
>>release, we were most likely frozen.  The 4.0 branch, however, is clearly
>>marked as frozen.
>
>I'll further note that it would really be useful to cc the fortran email 
>list on announcements of branch freezes and the like, given that many 
>(probably most) of the Fortran maintainers and contributors don't 
>monitor the patches and devel lists.  Usually someone happens to notice 
>and forwards a copy of the announcement over, but I think that got 
>overlooked this time, with predictable results.

Just to put emphasis on whom to "blaim" for this oversight:

It was _not_ me who checked that fix in but jerryd who
backported it to 4.1 (with a bad timing, it seems).

IIRC there was a convention to list the person who initially prepared
the patch as the first entry and then the actual committer:

date  original  <orig@>
	  committer <blame_me@>

or something to that effect. The rules for expected changelog
formats are a bit hidden, IIRC. Not sure if the convention on how to
format authors for backports like in the above case is even listed
there. Neither contribute.html nor
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Change-Logs give
examples for this particular case, AFAICS.