From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111654 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2017 05:13:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 111558 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2017 05:13:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*RU:!192.168.1.100!, Hx-spam-relays-external:!192.168.1.100!, H*r:ip*192.168.1.100, priorities X-HELO: mail.pacific.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] manual: Add new header and standards annotations. To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20161206105525.21117-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20161206105525.21117-4-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <665e49d4-dfa0-e14d-a793-d4acdca8e617@pacific.net> <7dd6da88-601f-e6f2-1f16-c24d7fdf84e2@pacific.net> <8c01ffc4-fcee-d584-bfab-d74a0b552b77@pacific.net> <8e8b0d56-b001-1870-1b5c-9895a1301c07@pacific.net> Cc: Joseph Myers , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, carlos@redhat.com From: Rical Jasan Message-ID: <0d5758f3-52bb-31cb-21e2-d218ace98065@pacific.net> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 05:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Null-Tag: a7457113156d9cab82911a3bafb1ad8d X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On to 2.26! I apologize for the sudden absence. I was pulled away by some priorities that kept me longer than I expected. I've caught up on libc-alpha and picked back up the work on header and standards annotations. On 12/15/2016 05:01 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Rical Jasan wrote: >> To confirm the approved pieces for once I'm prepared to push the commit >> button, were you referring to only the chapters so far in this patch >> ([v2 3/5] {argp,arith,lang,string}.texi) or also the first two >> (patches)? [v2 1/5] has been OK'd, no other comments; [v2 2/5] also >> was, though a typo was pointed out in the commit message. > > I'm referring to all patches or parts of patches that have been approved. > >> On the topic of commit messages, How would you like me to write them if >> this patch goes in piecewise? Should the first one look how I submitted >> it in this patch and subsequent patches can refer back to it or >> duplicate it? Or should they be rewritten to be more specific for each >> commit (maybe if committed by file)? > > The commit messages should be accurate in relation to the patch version > actually committed. If I'm going to piecemeal [1], I have a question about how best to change the commit message. Chapter-by-chapter it's easier to provide more detail, so I wrote the following for argp.texi, for example: ---- argp.texi contains several @vtables with variables lacking header and standard annotations. All ARGP_* variables are GNU extensions declared in argp.h, and are annotated accordingly. * manual/argp.texi: Annotate variables declared in argp.h as GNU extensions. ---- The commit message in [1], however, contains the rationale behind these changes, which is lost if I break the chapters apart and give specifics. If I were to include the rationale in every chapter, that would be overly redundant. I feel the patches speak for themselves, given the rationale, but I also understand the need to ease review for larger diffs. So, how would you like the per-chapter commits to read? Thank you, Rical [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00141.html