On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Duncan Sands wrote:> Do you want in-tree changelogs for LLVM changes that touch general gcc > files (i.e. outside the llvm* files), like Apple maintains in ChangeLog.apple? > Hopefully not!I have never understood the use of GCC-style changelogs. Regardless, we never kept them for llvm-gcc 4.0, so I don't think we need them for 4.2. Do you agree Devang? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
Hi Chris,> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Do you want in-tree changelogs for LLVM changes that touch general > > gcc files (i.e. outside the llvm* files), like Apple maintains in > > ChangeLog.apple? Hopefully not! > > I have never understood the use of GCC-style changelogs. Regardless, > we never kept them for llvm-gcc 4.0, so I don't think we need them for > 4.2. Do you agree Devang?I agree ChangeLogs are redundant given modern RCSes. There is one related bit of GPL V2 that says a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. so, being a license pedant, if any of the source falls under GPL V2 and you're modifying and distributing it, you should make some attempt to meet 2(a). IANAL, etc. :-) Cheers, Ralph.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Ralph Corderoy wrote:>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Do you want in-tree changelogs for LLVM changes that touch general >>> gcc files (i.e. outside the llvm* files), like Apple maintains in >>> ChangeLog.apple? Hopefully not! >> >> I have never understood the use of GCC-style changelogs. Regardless, >> we never kept them for llvm-gcc 4.0, so I don't think we need them for >> 4.2. Do you agree Devang? > > I agree ChangeLogs are redundant given modern RCSes. There is one > related bit of GPL V2 that says > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > so, being a license pedant, if any of the source falls under GPL V2 and > you're modifying and distributing it, you should make some attempt to > meet 2(a).I believe we satisfy that requirement by updating the copyright block (e.g.): Copyright (C) 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. and by marking our changes with LLVM LOCAL. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/