This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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] Fix broken overflow check in posix_fallocate

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 
the GCS:

	* file (func1, func2, func3)
	(func4, func5): Message.

and (b) with the generalization described where multiple files are 

Joseph S. Myers

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