svn commit: r350505 - in head: contrib/binutils/binutils/doc gnu/usr.bin/binutils/objdump

[Mark Johnston]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:22:46AM -0500, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 11:00 AM Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > > Author: emaste
> > > Date: Thu Aug  1 14:42:41 2019
> > > New Revision: 350505
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/350505
> > >
> > > Log:
> > >   objdump: be explicit that GNU objdump that will be removed
> > >
> > >   We may install llvm-objdump as objdump (see review D18307) or just
> > >   provide no /usr/bin/objdump, but either way GNU objdump won't be
> > >   installed in the future.
> > >
> > >   MFC after:  3 days
> >
> > Can we get a RELNOTES entry for this please?
> >
> 
> Great idea. What's the protocol the project wants here? It seems to me that
> we'd want a world where either the original committer or folks shepherding
> the release notes out the door when the time comes could commit entries to
> the file. We should encourage the OC to do it, but have the culture that we
> can be relaxed about others doing it too so we have low friction around
> this file.

This is basically how UPDATING works.  It's reasonable to reply to a
commit mail and ask the committer to consider adding a RELNOTES entry,
perhaps proposing some text.  And if the committer doesn't follow up,
there's no problem with just going ahead and committing the new entry.

That said, I would think that an actual removal of GNU objdump would
be the commit that deserves a RELNOTES entry, not this one.