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

Christopher Faylor
Wed Oct 7 03:04:00 GMT 2009

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:14:59PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 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.

I think this one is Corinna's call.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list