On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:14:59PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:53:54PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >>>Hence, three separate "entries". One question: when it comes time to >>>commit this to CVS, should it be done all in one lump, or 1-2-3 very >>>quick separate commits (even though the tree would be broken between, >>>say, #1 and #2)? >> >> I don't see why you shouldn't check in everything together since it's >> all one "change set". It's not like you could just back out Kai's changes >> individually and still get a working cygwin, right? > >Correct. You really need all three bits for a working solution. >(Although the ChangeLog as I posted it is in traditional reverse-order. >Kai's bits would go first, then my changes to pseudo-reloc.c, and last >my changes to the other files). > >I just figured it made sense to split up the ChangeLog, because I didn't >want to take credit for Kai's changes, but I did want to document what I >did, beyond the mingw/ version (which should make it easier when I >submit THOSE changes back to the mingw folks). Furthermore, I figure >somebody might scan the ChangeLog looking for people without a Red Hat >copyright assignment, and get nervous if they saw: > >date Charles Wilson <...> <<--- has assignment > Kai Teitz <...> <<--- no assignment (?) > > A bunch of changes > >The way I split the ChangeLog up, it is clear that Kai only touched the >public domain file. > >Anyway, once I had split up the ChangeLog, I simply wondered if I should >/also/ split up the commits. If you're happy with one-big-lump, so am I >-- that's easier.
I think this one is Corinna's call. cgf
