Re: VETO: Re: [PATCH] [PACKAGES] Info / uniquify problems cleaned up
[moved to xemacs-beta; this is not a patch anymore]]
On 27 Dec 2001, Adrian Aichner moaned:
this veto is only against the ChangeLog entry.
*boggle*
Please reformat it to become compliant with
(xemacs)Change Log
A point of policy: many other projects accept multiline changelog
headers to indicate multiperson authorship. For instance (from GCC):
2001-08-13 Roman Zippel <zippel(a)linux-m68k.org>
Richard Henderson <rth(a)redhat.com>
* regmove.c (regmove_optimize): Avoid setting a register twice in
a parallel set.
So this is a divergence from GNU ;)
IMHO, this is the only fair way to indicate true multiperson authorship
of a patch. In this case, I could probably rephrase it as
2001-12-26 Nix <nix(a)esperi.demon.co.uk>
* uniquify.el (uniquify-ignore-buffers-query-functions): New hook,
called to determine buffers not to uniquify. (Thanks to Volker
Franz <volker.franz(a)tuebingen.mpg.de>
(uniquify-rationalize-file-buffer-names): Use it...
(uniquify-ignore-buffers-re): ... reimplement in terms of it.
New function.
(uniquify-ignore-buffers-mode-re): New variable and function.
but if Volker had changed most of the patch, this could get extremely
ugly.
The header should be a single line:
> A change log entry starts with a header line that contains your name
> and the current date. Except for these header lines, every line in the
> change log starts with a tab. One entry can describe several changes;
> each change starts with a line starting with a tab and a star. `M-x
What is the rationale for this? The GNU coding standards carefully avoid
describing the precise format of a changelog entry (and, in fact, even
this ext doesn't describe things like the format of date to be used, and
several different formats are in use.)
--
`Mmm... Maybe I just like strong women that can hurt me?'
--- Vadik, on female throat-cutting doctors