From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49958 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2016 13:01:27 -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 49921 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2016 13:01:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:01:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Rical Jasan CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] manual: Add new header and standards annotations. In-Reply-To: <8e8b0d56-b001-1870-1b5c-9895a1301c07@pacific.net> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00546.txt.bz2 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. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com