Re: Patch format

2008-05-19 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:27:14PM +0200, Daniel Leidert a écrit : > Am Montag, den 19.05.2008, 13:22 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > > > > I do not understand: the link you gave is for changelogs. > > Yeah, exactly. And a Changelog entry is nothing else than a change > description ... exactly wh

Re: Patch format

2008-05-19 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Montag, den 19.05.2008, 13:22 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > Le Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:50:37PM +0200, Daniel Leidert a écrit : > > Am Sonntag, den 18.05.2008, 12:27 +0200 schrieb David Paleino: > > > > [..] > > > Can we standardize the patch header? Be it quilt, dpatch, $foo, the header > > >

Re: Patch format

2008-05-19 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Daniel Leidert wrote: Yeah, exactly. And a Changelog entry is nothing else than a change description ... exactly what you try to achieve - describe, what apatch does/changes. I really do not agree that a description of a patch is logically a changelog. A log is a journal

Re: Patch format

2008-05-19 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Montag, den 19.05.2008, 13:00 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > On Mon, 19 May 2008, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > > Yeah, exactly. And a Changelog entry is nothing else than a change > > description ... exactly what you try to achieve - describe, what apatch > > does/changes. > > I really do not agr

Re: Patch format

2008-05-19 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Daniel Leidert wrote: Please read my mail. I referred to the description itself == the content of the "Description:" field. There is no conflict with your approach to use RFC 2822 compliant multiline fields (for whatever reason you think they are necessary). Ahh, OK, perha