On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 12:26, Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.06.21 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 12:05, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >> PR c++/12394 - internal compiler error: in write_type, at cp/mangle.c:1517
> >> PR fortran/100123 - -ftree-fre gives incorrect result in subroutine with
> >> array declared as length 1
> >> PR c++/12394
> >> PR fortran/100123
> > Now that we put these PR cmpt/nnnn lines before the xxx/ChangeLog
> > entries, is there any reason to indent them with a TAB?
>
> My understanding with the PR before vs. after the xxx/ChangeLog is
> that if you put them before, they apply to all changelog entries
> and if you put them afterward, it only only applies to the those
> ChangeLog files for which they have been mentioned.
That's my understanding too.
> (But I also might have misread the code/were misguided by the
> var names.)
>
> And when manually creating the changelog from scratch, they still
> often end up after the ChangeLog line.
>
> But otherwise, I am not attached to the tab. Just one thing:
> It might be slightly inconsistent to require the tab after the
> xxx/ChangeLog line but not before that line. And I think a
> tab should be used after the xxx/ChangeLog line.
I agree it should be used after the xxx/ChangeLog line, but I am OK
with the inconsistency. *Everything* after the xxx/ChangeLog line
(except the next yyy/ChangeLog line) is indented.
The current output of mklog.py just looks weird:
PR cmpt/123456
xxx/ChangeLog:
* file.c (func): Description.
The changelog entry is indented because that's what the actual
ChangeLog files use, but also because it makes it distinct from the
"xxx/ChangeLog" heading before it. But there is no "heading" line
before the PR number that it needs to stand out from. The PR line just
seems to be floating in the middle of the page, looking a bit lost.
I think what matters is that the script that generates the ChangeLog
files can identify the "PR cmpt/123456" part and add it to the
ChangeLog file. If it can identify that without a leading TAB (and
insert one for the text added to the ChangeLog file) then I think we
shouldn't require the TAB. And if it can still identify it even with
text following the PR number, then I think we should be allowed to
have text following the PR number.
> PS: My feeling is that you like the proposed mklog patch :-)
Yes, I think it's a nice improvement, sorry for not saying that explicitly.
