From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Carbon port emacs-unicode-2 build problem under MacOSX Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:56:47 -0800 Message-ID: <200711081556.lA8Fulm5016419@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <47305F6E.2030204@gnu.org> <4731D43F.3060007@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194537584 23312 80.91.229.12 (8 Nov 2007 15:59:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:59:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Adrian.B.Robert@gmail.com, jasonr@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 08 16:59:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iq9n9-0007X8-MI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:59:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iq9my-0002Az-GY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:59:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iq9ly-0001fx-DF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:58:26 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iq9lt-0001c1-2s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:58:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iq9ls-0001bq-OX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:58:20 -0500 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iq9lf-0003p8-Ul; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:58:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA8Fulm5016419; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:56:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed\, 07 Nov 2007 23\:42\:35 -0500") Original-Lines: 44 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.41, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, FS_OBFU_X 1.03) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82808 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Richard wants the ChangeLog to be massaged in a way > similar to what was done for multi-tty, and when this came up, everybody > ran away screeming (there's about 280KB of ChangeLog entries on the > unicode branch). > > It is important to have these change log entries in clean form. > > The most important part of the massaging is to get rid of duplicate > entries. For instance suppose a function named foo is added and then > changed 10 times. There will be 11 change log entries for it, but we > we only need to keep one: "New function". > > Even when a function is not new, sometimes you can simplify its change > log data a lot by combining entries. > > I don't insist on combining entries when it isn't a simplification. I have done the majority similar work when the multi-tty branch was merged. I was a _HUGE_ _HUGE_ effort. The unicode-2 merge is a few times (at least 3-4) bigger than that. On top of that, it is error prone, especially for things that have changed a lot. And those are the ones that need the most accurate change descriptions. Doing this is a very slow process, it needs a lot of editing and very careful thinking, it cannot be done automatically or with your brain in autopilot mode. With that experience in mind, the utility of such editing of the ChangeLogs seems questionable, it is a lot of up front investment that is of very limited use (almost none). If one needs to look at the history of some change, it can be found in the log and it is not hard to work your way backwards through the log, the log entries are currently correct and well written. With all this in mind, please reconsider the request to have the log entries edited for the merge. Thanks --dan