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
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
> > >
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo