[Dwarf-Discuss] Tracking issues

[Michael Eager]

On 06/25/13 01:49, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 08:58 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 07:42 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> Is there a location for the original issues as submitted?
>>> Is there a diff between versions of issues when they get revised?
>>> Is there a way to keep track of any issue changes like the above?
>>
>> http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100831.1-1&type=closed
>>
>> We don't keep a complete history of each change to a proposal.
>> Some proposals (like 100831.1) underwent significant changes
>> as it evolved.  For a few, where there has been a large change,
>> we do keep the previous version for reference.
>
> Aha OK, I have updated the elfutils GNU DWARF extensions page with the
> new URLs for Fission, implicit pointer and Go. Let me know if I missed
> any others. https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DwarfExtensions
> It would be really helpful if the issue URLs were stable.

The search-by-issue-number function currently expects to be told where
to look (open, closed, etc.).  This can be updated to look in all of
the correct places.

> Could an email be sent to the list whenever an issue is updated?
> Currently it is somewhat hard to keep track of (proposed) changes to the
> standard.

The update process is manual.  I'll see if an announcement can be
added to the workflow.

I understand the interest in tracking proposed changes to the DWARF
Standard.  On the other hand, these are proposals, not the standard,
even proposals which the DWARF Committee has accepted.

The DWARF Standard isn't official until it is released.  There are
proposals which modify parts of the standard which were added or
modified by other proposals.  It doesn't happen often, but there have
been times when a previously accepted proposal is modified (or perhaps
even rejected) in the light of a subsequent proposal.  We did an
extensive review of the standard before DWARF Version 4 was released
which identified a number of places where wording in different sections
was inconsistent and had to be reconciled.  We didn't go back and
modify the proposals which added inconsistent wording.

-- Michael Eager, DWARF Committee Chair