From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5435 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2007 17:32:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 5425 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2007 17:32:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:32:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9THSK7n006106; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:28:20 -0400 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9THSJ14030094; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:28:20 -0400 Received: from [10.32.4.15] (vpn-4-15.str.redhat.com [10.32.4.15]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9THSHWr020491; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:28:17 -0400 Message-ID: <47261830.3000203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:41:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070718) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Clifton , Martin Michlmayr , "Joseph S. Myers" , binutils@sourceware.org, rsandifo@nildram.co.uk Subject: Re: Ping Re: Patch for MIPS multi-got bug with forced-local symbols References: <20071006205539.GA28839@caradoc.them.org> <20071008133625.GA7117@caradoc.them.org> <874ph0gh6q.fsf@firetop.home> <20071012155930.GD9046@caradoc.them.org> <20071026180019.GA5345@deprecation.cyrius.com> <4722FD41.1020606@redhat.com> <20071027143836.GA3601@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20071027143836.GA3601@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, > I added the changelog entry in the same relative place that it was on > mainline. In hindsight maybe that's not a good idea. Should I use > the date I committed it to the branch instead? Yes please. I think that the date ought to reflect the point at which the patch was applied to the (branch/mainline) sources, not the time at which the patch was actually developed. This makes it easier for someone to use CVS's -D command line option to isolate the patch should they need to locate it. Cheers Nick