From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21735 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2007 23:32:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 21727 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2007 23:32:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:32:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985022A9817; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0gsxVxGJ4L2b; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C30D2A9814; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:32:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47534081.50801@adacore.com> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:32:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou CC: Daniel Berlin , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Bernd Schmidt , Richard Kenner , schwab@suse.de, sam@rfc1149.net Subject: Re: Rant about ChangeLog entries and commit messages References: <2007-12-02-11-05-39+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> <4752A817.7000206@t-online.de> <4aca3dc20712021227l666309jf7da5c53e9c68352@mail.gmail.com> <200712022136.57819.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> In-Reply-To: <200712022136.57819.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 Eric Botcazou wrote: >> I'd go even further, and say if the GNU coding standards say we >> shouldn't be putting descriptions of why we are changing things in the >> ChangeLog, than they should be changed and should be ignored on this >> point until they do. Pointing to them as the if they are The One True >> Way seems very suspect to me. After all, how else would they ever >> improve if nobody tries anything different? > > The people who wrote them presumably thought about these issues, too. Maybe so, but I guess we only have a record of what they came up with and not why :-) :-) In the Ada revision histories, we have always given the what-and-the-why (and if necessary the why-not), and they have proved very helpful, I always found the RH's for gigi (done in the gcc style, much less helpful because they omitted the why). Of course you have to watch out for people forgetting that RH's never substitute for comments, but all patches are reviewed, and if that happens it gets fixed during the review process. >