This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: How far should we trust ChangeLog attribution dates?
- From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:55:28 -0500
- Subject: Re: How far should we trust ChangeLog attribution dates?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171221211909.39B0B13A6A96@snark.thyrsus.com> <CADzB+2kx3=DAdt7kxHEAjo68gB765r-qEf=TPLpwy-CRh2EHdA@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: esr at thyrsus dot com
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> YMD in the ChangeLog is typically commit date rather than authorship
> date anyway, so (i) and (iii) shouldn't differ much at all, and (i)
> seems simpler.
I have not generally observed this to be true. Maybe it's a GCC-local thing?
When I was an active Emacs contributor but did not have commit access
yet, it was strongly expected that if you shipped a patch to be merged
it would include a ChangeLog entry. The attribution line would be
therefore have to be the date you made your patch - you couldn't know
the commit date in advance.
Is this not general practice on FSF projects?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.