This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH RFA: Use years for ChangeLog names

From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, hp at bitrange dot com
Date: 06 Mar 2005 13:37:55 -0500
Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Use years for ChangeLog names
References: <m3fyz8ogah.fsf@gossamer.airs.com><Pine.LNX.4.61.0503061819430.31378@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
> > look at the ChangeLog for the appropriate year.  This is also how some
> > other GNU programs organize their ChangeLog files, including libhava
> > and libstdc++-v3.
> 
> Not consistently, however.  libjava/ChangeLog-1999 has entries from 1998, 
> libjava/ChangeLog-2001 has entries from 2000, libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog-2000 
> has entries from 1998 and 1999.  Perhaps a followup patch could also fix 
> those?

Sure, I'll volunteer to tackle that, if the first patch is approved.

Offlist Daniel Berlin mentioned that maybe any such renaming should
wait until we move to a version control system which supports file
renaming (if indeed we do move).  Personally I don't think it matters
since I don't think anybody really cares about doing "cvs log" or "cvs
annotate" (or equivalent) on a ChangeLog file.  But if anybody feels
differently, please speak up now.

Ian

References:
- PATCH RFA: Use years for ChangeLog names
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: PATCH RFA: Use years for ChangeLog names
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]