Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2010, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST:
>>> On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries
which explicitly do not hav
Den 2010-09-06 11:27 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
> On 6 Sep 2010, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST:
>>> On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries
which
On 6 Sep 2010, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST:
>> On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries
>>> which explicitly do not have that particular meaning. :
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST:
> On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries
> > which explicitly do not have that particular meaning. :-/
>
> I suppose we can create an annota
[[sorry for the thread hijack]]
On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:23:57PM CEST:
>> The git pages are clear that S-O-B has project-dependent
>> interpretation. Coreutils currently doesn't even use it (the only
>> people with commit priv
Hello,
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:23:57PM CEST:
> The git pages are clear that S-O-B has project-dependent
> interpretation. Coreutils currently doesn't even use it (the only
> people with commit privileges to the master coreutils.git have FSF
> copyright, and it is assumed tha
On 09/02/2010 03:16 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 9/2/2010 5:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/02/2010 03:00 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Two people worked on a single patch, or someone submitted it, and then
one of the people with commit access modified the patch slightly. The
GCS says you should do
On 9/2/2010 5:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 03:00 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Two people worked on a single patch, or someone submitted it, and then
>> one of the people with commit access modified the patch slightly. The
>> GCS says you should do this, in the ChangeLog:
>>
>>
[adding bug-gnulib]
On 09/02/2010 03:00 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
IF we want to use gitlog to create the ChangeLog, then either of these
is fine with me. However, see below.
iii) fix the gitlog entries -- if that's even viable?
I don't think (iii) will work. You can play all sorts o
