ChangeLogs in commit messages

Gary Benson gbenson@redhat.com
Tue Sep 16 09:31:00 GMT 2014


Doug Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> > > There's still something missing (IIUC).
> > > One of the problems that needs to be solved is documenting the
> > > author in the patch submission (the email that goes to the
> > > list).  The above convention allows for a default where the
> > > absence of a name means author == committer, but we're still not
> > > specifying an absolute requirement that the patch author appears
> > > in the email sent to the list.
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say: You are now
> > establishing that there are 3 users, not 2. author, submitter, and
> > committer. Why do we need the submitter's name in the revision
> > log?
> 
> We don't need the submitter's name in the revision log.  I was
> referring to the patch author appearing in the email sent to the
> list.
> 
> Pedro wrote "I think author info must be explicit in patch submissions
> somehow."
> ref: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2014-09/msg00038.html
> Read the full text of 00038 for more context.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> The changes specified in
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2014-09/msg00052.html
> do not address this, yet in the text of that email (00052)
> Pedro's comment is included (again, ref: 00052).

We inline the ChangeLog entries in the patch submission emails, eg
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00286.html
so the optional author lines would be inlined right there.

Cheers,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/



More information about the Gdb mailing list