From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19319 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2014 16:50:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19293 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jan 2014 16:50:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:50:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0FGo1T6005790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:01 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0FGnxHK002750; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:00 -0500 Message-ID: <52D6BC37.9000806@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:50:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Joel Brobecker , binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: small request regarding commits in binutils-gdb.git References: <20140115121251.GM4639@adacore.com> <83mwix44gh.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83mwix44gh.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 On 01/15/2014 04:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The text before the log entry is just a long way of saying the same > thing as the log entry, isn't it? It repeats the info that is already > in the log entry. Why does it make sense to repeat all that? Comments in the code should describe anything non-obvious about the _present_ state of the code. ("We used to do this, and now do that" comments are not appropriate in the code.) The ChangeLog entry says _what_ changed. The rationale for the change, the _why_ the change was made, the bridge between old and new, is what is often lost in the mailing list archives, often times spread over a discussion crossing several emails (and if it crosses the month border, it's usually harder even to retrieve), if in any at all. The commit log is the perfect place to store that info. -- Pedro Alves