From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CEDET Merge Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:08:55 +0200 Message-ID: <8360l75b6w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87r348ul9n.fsf@gmail.com> <87lgugm2qg.fsf@gmail.com> <87inpelu8i.fsf@gmail.com> <837f5uajlk.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8aqlqz8.fsf@gmail.com> <8360leahxr.fsf@gnu.org> <8760lelq68.fsf@gmail.com> <83wpdt8yo2.fsf@gnu.org> <87inpd650y.fsf@gmail.com> <8660ldabje.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <8737gh5sqw.fsf@gmail.com> <87k29tv0r4.fsf@engster.org> <8737gguipm.fsf@engster.org> <87h94vdj3n.fsf@gmail.com> <87o9z2sog1.fsf@engster.org> <87vataadkk.fsf@red-bean.com> <87k29ps7ai.fsf@engster.org> <83vat862p9.fsf@gnu.org> <8my3y4xo49.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83fukc5kfl.fsf@gnu.org> <8c7f5o8cu0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83bmv05h1a.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1485101403 9362 195.159.176.226 (22 Jan 2017 16:10:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, kfogel@red-bean.com, edward.steere@gmail.com, stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 22 17:09:56 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKi1-0000DA-2h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:09:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36833 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKi4-0007vn-7M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:09:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKhU-0007vi-Kj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:09:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKhQ-0003PY-P5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42452) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKhQ-0003PU-M1; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:09:00 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3752 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cVKhP-00049U-AF; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:08:59 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:57:58 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211528 Archived-At: > Cc: Glenn Morris , kfogel@red-bean.com, edward.steere@gmail.com, > stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org, deng@randomsample.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:57:58 -0800 > > >> If you want a recent example of this, "make ChangeLog" and look at the > >> dates of "recent" concurrency entries. Some are years old. > > That doesn't mean we should drop the rule, just that some people are > > not always following rules. > > I guess I'm not following this. For example, commit > 470e3028d8a741d97349faa8fdeb148d913a49d0 ("Fix the MS-Windows build") has a > commit date of 2015-11-02 19:04:06 2015 +0200, and so "make ChangeLog" dates it > 2015-11-02. And yet this commit was merged into master on 2016-12-10, by you, as > part of merge commit 2412a1fc05fe9f89b171d0781c2d530923f48adc ("Support > concurrency in Emacs Lisp"). So when you say "some people are not always > following rules", do you mean that you did this particular merge incorrectly? Or > am I not understanding the rules? Commit 2412a1f has its own log message (something unusual for merge commits, AFAIK), so IMO this example exactly follows the rules as I understand them.