On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:55:28 -0500, "Eric S. Raymond" <e...@thyrsus.com> > wrote: >> Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: >> > YMD in the ChangeLog is typically commit date rather than authorship >> > date anyway, so (i) and (iii) shouldn't differ much at all, and (i) >> > seems simpler. >> >> I have not generally observed this to be true. Maybe it's a GCC-local thing? > > No, that's general GNU policy, see > <https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html>: > "When you install someone else’s changes [...] for the date, that should > be the date you applied the change." > >> When I was an active Emacs contributor but did not have commit access >> yet, it was strongly expected that if you shipped a patch to be merged >> it would include a ChangeLog entry. The attribution line would be >> therefore have to be the date you made your patch - you couldn't know >> the commit date in advance. > > ..., and the the person doing the commit is expected to change that to > the current date. (Don't ask me why...)
My secret desire is that once we get this done we would drop these silly ChangeLogs. Although I'm not a kernel developer, I kind of like the Linux kernel style, where the commit msg contains a reasonably in-depth motivation for the change, sort of like the email message one sends to gcc-patches when introducing a patch (in fact, if one uses git format-patch + git send-email this kind of workflow is supported out-of-the-box). I find that a lot more useful than a screenful of "Likewise". YMMV. -- Janne Blomqvist
