This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documenting what changed since 4.0 (gcj core libraries)
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:51:38 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Documenting what changed since 4.0 (gcj core libraries)
- References: <1138617600.5717.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m3acddlo09.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <1138714399.5680.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138718247.5680.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601311533440.10282@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <1138725762.5680.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0602111725110.7068@rana.site> <1139741599.4546.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Hi Mark,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Uh, umm. If I remember correctly, the one concern I had, back when the
>> Ada entries were added, is that we should avoid contrib.texi become a list
>> of lists of contributions per project.
> It could of course, but if I can avoid that work...
> There seem to be about 10 duplicate names and the sorting order is
> different in the lists. But if you insist.
I don't want to insist strongly, given the work you kindly put into
this and changes.html so far.
Since GCC 4.1 is coming up soon, could going with your current patch,
just adjusting the sorting order to the one used in the main part of
contrib.texi, and postponing the merger of the lists to a later point
in time be a viable compromise?
>> The current patch submissions handles libgcj 4.1 nicely; did you plan to
>> add a separate one for 4.2 and subsequent releases? That's one of the
>> reasons I'd be more in favor of one consolidated list, but I'd be
>> interested in your thoughts on this.
> Yes, that was my plan. Mainly because for each GNU Classpath snapshot
> this is how contributors are mentioned. And the main contributor list
> doesn't contain what people worked on (and isn't as up to date...).
> Maybe that should also be fixed "upstream". But correctly listing all
> main contributions for everybody since 1998 is quite some work.
Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but having one list for every
release is something I'd really like us to avoid. Perhaps avoiding
that level of detail for the entries in contrib.tex would help making
things easier?
>> Isn't "Kaffe" spelt with an extra e?
> Nope. It is Kaffe (www.kaffe.org).
Oops, sorry. That's my Austrian heritage, I guess. ;-)
> I changed them all to bugfix. Although contrib.texi as a whole isn't
> consistent and uses both with and without a space.
Do you want to change this throughout contrib.texi, or do you prefer to
go ahead with your patch and leaving this to me?
Gerald