changelog rotation...

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Kevin Buettner wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand what the problem is for DOS anyway. 
> ChangeLogs are not buildable, so they don't have to be referred to in
> Makefiles or any other part of the configury, right?

Right.

> And we do have a
> mechanism for mapping colliding names to other (non-colliding) names
> when creating a tar file for such systems, right?

Yes, but: this mechanism for mapping names to prevent collisions is not 
automatic.  It requires that a file (gdb/config/djgpp/fnchange.lst) be 
edited to add any new files that collide, together with their mappings.  
This is an additional maintenance burden I'd like to avoid, especially 
since there's a decision to make the list of colliding names much 
smalled in some distant future by reorganizing the directory structure in 
a way that part of the file names is replaced with a subdirectory.  For 
example, files gdb/config/alpha/alpha-osf2.mh and 
gdb/config/alpha/alpha-osf2.mh will go into a subdirectory 
gdb/config/alpha/alpha under the names osf1.mh and osf2.mh (or something 
like that, the exact example is not important).

> Also, we're going
> to only be adding a new one of these each year; this should not be
> too onerous for the maintainer who has to update the mapping.

These files are not the only ones that are added.  One file per year 
might seem like a small problem, but if it is an Nth plus one file, the 
overall burden is significant.

> That being the case (if it really is the case), I see no reason to
> give the ChangeLog files names that are going to annoy most of us
> every time we see them.

I suggested to make the split be version-based to avoid the annoyance, 
among other reasons.