[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Thank the developer of the initial push parser implementatio

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Thank the developer of the initial push parser implementation.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:00:47 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Odd Arild Olsen wrote:

> I just want an "I was here" tag as a kind of documentation for my CV. So my 
> name in the THANKS file only is quite OK with me. 

Hi Odd.  Thanks for saying so.  And, because I don't believe I've ever 
addressed you directly, thanks again for your part in the push parser.

> On Tirsdag 19 januar 2010, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > > If it is not the case (I don't have Bison at
> > > hand), we should make sur Odd is credited in the NEWS file too.
> > 
> > No recent contributor is credited in the NEWS file, and there have been
> > many.  I guess this is my fault as I had always thought the ChangeLog was
> > the usual place for that.  It's fine with me to add Odd to NEWS, but we
> > should add the rest of them at the same time.
> > 
> > However, I don't know how you want that to look.  Do we list all
> > contributors for each feature?  In this case, Odd was the original
> > developer.  Bob Rossi prepared it for modern Bison.  Paul Eggert, you, and
> > I gave advice and made substantial code contributions before the first
> > release.  Did I forget anyone?  We would have the same questions for
> > recent features such as DOT, Java, named references, XML, etc.

Akim, I hope I'm not coming across as being disagreeable here.  It's 
absolutely fine by me to extend NEWS in this way.  I just want to be fair 
to everyone involved, and I'm not sure of the right way to do it.

> > If you want to get that started, I'll try to follow your lead.  However,
> > do we postpone 2.4.2 until this is done?  I was hoping to roll it this
> > week.

I realized yesterday that our POT files have changed a little since 2.4.1, 
so we probably need to put a 2.4.1a out for about a week.  I'll try to 
roll that today or tomorrow.  I don't think we should postpone 2.4.2 any 
longer than that.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]