This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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] |
On Monday 16 April 2012 17:31:20 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/16/2012 10:24 PM, Ryan S. Arnold wrote: > > Considering that I have to regenerate the patch to apply it cleanly, > > I'm not sure how this should be added to the ChangeLog. > > > > We discussed in IRC a bit and Roland seems in favor of adding it with > > the existing (old) date to the top of the ChangeLog. > > > > Carlos O'Donell seems to favor updating the date to reflect the commit > > date. > > > > Consensus would be nice on this one. > > I realize glibc's practices may pre-date current GNU Coding Standards' > conventions, but, IMO, in the interest of eliminating differences between > different GNU projects, with only adds to confusion for people that work > on more than one, it'd be best to just follow what the GNU coding standard > says. And it says: > > "As for the date, that should be the date you applied the change. " > > <https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Style-of-Change-Logs> +1 ... especially since this is how the other GNU toolchain projects work. i've got binutils/gdb/etc... encoded in my mind when it comes to writing GNU changelogs. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |