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: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <esr at thyrsus dot com>
- Cc: gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:22:14 +0100
- 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> <20171221225528.GA32548@thyrsus.com>
Hi!
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:55:28 -0500, "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> 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?
No, that's general GNU policy, see
<https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html>:
"When you install someone else’s changes [...] for the date, that should
be the date you applied the change."
> 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.
..., and the the person doing the commit is expected to change that to
the current date. (Don't ask me why...)
Grüße
Thomas