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. :-/
I
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 have that
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 that
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 annotation
[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
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:
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
