Home Original page

Binutils release 2.28 - soon

Maciej W. Rozycki macro@linux-mips.org
Thu Dec 29 14:33:00 GMT 2016 
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Matthias Klose wrote:

> > Thanks for the heads up. IMO, we should resume the efforts in trying
> > to get rid of that date (using the git revision when available instead),
> > so as to avoid those daily checkins. On the branch especially, they
> > completely drown the real commits, rendering the branch history
> > very painful to read.
> > 
> > In the meantime, i've updated the branch name for the date bump.
> 
> thanks!  I still think using the date is more expressive than using a commit ID.
>  So what about only bumping the date if the last commit is not a date bump?

 Depending on the history of a particular commit its date may be out of 
order, sometimes way out, which may be confusing and having time stamps 
might help -- although we still require any accompanying ChangeLog records 
to have the actual date of the commit being applied to a particular 
branch.

 OTOH extra commits increase the amount of work required for bisection, 
and that can be more costly (e.g. requiring a full toolchain bootstrap per 
iteration) than the amount of effort required to reach out for any 
ChangeLog update included with a given commit.

 FWIW,

  Maciej
More information about the Binutils mailing list