This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
- From: Feng Wang <wf_cs at yahoo dot com>
- To: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>, FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Schl?ter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:45:04 +0800 (CST)
- Subject: Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
--- Steve Kargl <firstname.lastname@example.org> 写道:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:09:57PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > >Another issue is that your patch is only superficially different from the
> > >one
> > >Peter Wainwright suggested when he filed the PR, so you should probably
> > >his name to the ChangeLog entry.
> > OK, so here is my question: is the name in the ChangeLog entry supposed
> > to be the one of the commiter, the one of the author, or both?
> I don't know if it's rigorous policy, but I follow the convention
> that Paul B used when he was committing my patches for me. If
> I commit someone else patch, I include that persons name in the
> Changelog along with mine. The intent is to give credit to the
> person responsible for developing the patch and to give the name
> of the person to blame for actually committing the patch.
> 2005-05-23 submitter <email address>
> committer <email address>
I don't think this is the convention. Usually the credit should be given the
authors, except the committer also does the job for the patch (i.e. changes the
original patch and the committer becomes one of the authers).
Creative Compiler Research Group,
National University of Defense Technology, China.
Do You Yahoo!?