Re: Cleanup pending breakpoints floatsam

[Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>]

Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> writes:
> Jim Blandy wrote:
>
>> 
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> writes:
>>> After pending breakpoints were changed for better, a number of
>>> functions have 'pending_bp' parameter that is not used in any
>>> way. This patch removes it. OK?
>>>
>>> (I'll write ChangeLog entry if this patch is approved)
>> 
>> Looks good to me; please commit.
>
> Thanks. The final patch with changelog is attached.
>  
>> (This patch was mechanical and touched a number of functions, so I can
>> understand why you'd rather put off writing the ChangeLog entry for
>> it.  But in general, a patch should be posted with a ChangeLog entry:
>> it helps reviewers understand the patch, and of course the entry is
>> subject to review itself.)
>
> It's this a bit too pedantic, for this case? This is as mechanical patch
> as it can get, so ChangeLog won't have much value in understanding the patch.

What I meant was, in this case it's not a problem, for just the reason
you say.  But in general, patches should include ChangeLog entries
when posted for review.