This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix broken overflow check in posix_fallocate
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:19:03 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix broken overflow check in posix_fallocate
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1440571321-20287-1-git-send-email-eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu> <55DD6115 dot 2040000 at redhat dot com> <55DFB8EB dot 5000005 at redhat dot com> <55E01FCF dot 9050507 at redhat dot com> <55E07C13 dot 2090503 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <55E09784 dot 3010608 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> * Does anyone mind if we support descriptive text in the ChangeLog?
Of course we should support it; it's permitted in the GNU Coding
Standards. I see no use in being stricter about ChangeLog format than
what the GNU Coding Standards say (beyond the [BZ #N] annotations, where
the GCS say nothing about how to indicate bug numbers). (Of course, if we
get automatic processing of commit messages to replace manual ChangeLog
editing, we do need to get strict about formatting the commit message in
the way expected by that automatic processing - but that's about enabling
the processing to see what bit is the ChangeLog entry, not about the
details of formatting within the ChangeLog entry.)
> * Does anyone mind if we use the terse "Likewise" format?
I'm happy with it. That is, (a) with the format explicitly mentioned in
* file (func1, func2, func3)
(func4, func5): Message.
and (b) with the generalization described where multiple files are
Joseph S. Myers