Re: PATCH RFA: Use years for ChangeLog names

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>
> > > When I proposed this a couple of months ago, Hans-Peter objected:
> > >    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00640.html
> > > I honestly didn't understand the objection.  Hans-Peter, let me know
> > > if you want to try again to explain it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope.  If you feel strongly enough to rename and fiddle with the
> > old files, go ahead.  I still feel the change is unnecessary
> > (and as such should only apply to new splits) but I don't feel
> > strongly about it.
>
>
> I think this would be excellent.  Many times I have had to go and do
> some gcc archeology to find some patch to backport to some old version
> of the compiler.  The disconnect between changelog file names and dates
> is just one more thing that makes it an annoying process.

I agree.  And, I'm not worried about file-renaming affecting ChangeLogs. 
 As you say, nobody does "cvs log" on ChangeLogs, and, anyhow, since 
we've been rotating stuff out of ChangeLog into ChangeLog.X, there are 
odd discontinuities.  So your patch/plan is approved.

(A more controversial plan would be to then put ChangeLog entries into 
ChangeLog.YYYY in the first place, rather than putting them in ChangeLog 
and moving them, but I realize that this is (a) contrary to the GNU 
coding standards, and (b) not as friendly to some editors.)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304