Merge pseudo-reloc-v2 support from mingw/pseudo-reloc.c

Charles Wilson
Wed Oct 7 00:15:00 GMT 2009

> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:53:54PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>Hence, three separate "entries". One question: when it comes time to
>>commit this to CVS, should it be done all in one lump, or 1-2-3 very
>>quick separate commits (even though the tree would be broken between,
>>say, #1 and #2)?
> I don't see why you shouldn't check in everything together since it's
> all one "change set". It's not like you could just back out Kai's changes
> individually and still get a working cygwin, right?

Correct. You really need all three bits for a working solution.
(Although the ChangeLog as I posted it is in traditional reverse-order.
Kai's bits would go first, then my changes to pseudo-reloc.c, and last
my changes to the other files).

I just figured it made sense to split up the ChangeLog, because I didn't
want to take credit for Kai's changes, but I did want to document what I
did, beyond the mingw/ version (which should make it easier when I
submit THOSE changes back to the mingw folks).  Furthermore, I figure
somebody might scan the ChangeLog looking for people without a Red Hat
copyright assignment, and get nervous if they saw:

date  Charles Wilson  <...>  <<--- has assignment
      Kai Teitz  <...>       <<--- no assignment (?)

      A bunch of changes

The way I split the ChangeLog up, it is clear that Kai only touched the
public domain file.

Anyway, once I had split up the ChangeLog, I simply wondered if I should
/also/ split up the commits.  If you're happy with one-big-lump, so am I
-- that's easier.

But I think the ChangeLog should remain 'segregated' like I posted it.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list