2.37 branch and ChangeLogs

[Alan Modra]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:25:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger via Binutils wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2021 16:30, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote:
> > >   Once the 2.37 branch has been created, we are going to relax the
> > >   requirement that patch submissions include text for changelog
> > >   entry(s).  Instead we are going to use the details from the git commit
> > >   messages.  This does mean that these messages must include accurate
> > >   details concerning the author(s) and contents of the patches.
> > >
> > >   Changelog entries can still be submitted with a patch, should the
> > >   author so wish, but the commit messages must also be complete.
> > >
> > >   I will be investigating how to collect together git commit messages
> > >   and turn them into changelog like files for when a release is
> > >   generated, so that releases will still retain full details of the
> > >   patches that they contain.
> > 
> > I endorse re-using the GCC solution, with complete, formatted
> > changelog entries as part of the git commit log and automated
> > extraction to the respective ChangeLog (piggy-backed on the
> > snapshot scripts).  Or, at least something compatible with the
> > corresponding workflow, so maintainers don't have to remember
> > that the rules are different.
> > 
> > I hope the practical problems are manageable with different
> > rules in gdb and binutils and whatnot with the different
> > directories.
> 
> gdb & binutils are in sync now.  gdb is getting rid of ChangeLogs entirely,
> both as files & in commit messages.
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179872.html
> 
> this is vastly superior to gcc's flow.

I'm more than happy to be rid of ChangeLog files, but I don't agree
that gdb's scheme is vastly superior.  You don't know that yet.  How
many people downstream of gdb, who perhaps only look at gdb source
from one release to the next, will have their workflow affected?  One
such group of people are FSF lawyers, who might need to defend you
against another SCO.  Is the FSF happy with the change?

Like Hans-Peter, I also think binutils would be better adopting gcc's
scheme at least in the near future.  It's easy to follow, and I reckon
binutils putting ChangeLog entries into the git log won't impact gdb.

As far as patch submissions go, I won't reject a patch without a
ChangeLog; I've often filled one out for new contributors.  

Note that my work-flow won't be affected much if we lose ChangeLog
entries entirely.  I don't tend to use ChangeLogs nowadays when doing
source archaeology.  It's the legal side of this change that is
bothering me.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM