[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-28 06:27 -------
Do we need this any more after svn as svn automatically does patch sets and
doing a diff for a patch set ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2006-01-01 22:24 -------
Subject: Re:  Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> Do we need this any more after svn as svn automatically does patch sets and
> doing a diff for a patch set ?

It's of just as much value for all the audit purposes with SVN as with 
CVS.  The *only* point in this bug's comments which no longer applies is 
that from comments #2 and #6 (since SVN gives atomic changesets), all 
other uses still apply.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 13:47 -------
So almost 7 years later we still have this bug report and nothing has happened
-- and the reporter isn't exactly persuing the issue either.  Can we just
please close this one to avoid bug database polution?


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2007-11-26 14:28 -------
Subject: Re:  Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

The feature request is just as relevant as it was.  Part of the point of a 
bug database is to track issues over time for as long as they are relevant 
rather than having them lapse and be forgotten through the passage of 
time; old but still-relevant issues are not pollution.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 14:37 -------
The feature request is only worth a bug report if you actually intend to persue
the request.  Just keeping bug reports open for tracking issues where nothing
happens is a Bad Thing.

I suggest you bring up your request on gcc@ or on overseers.  If no-one but you
wants to persue this actively, I'd say there is no reason to keep this report
open.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2007-11-26 14:43 -------
Subject: Re:  Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> The feature request is only worth a bug report if you actually intend to persue
> the request.  Just keeping bug reports open for tracking issues where nothing
> happens is a Bad Thing.

No, it's a Good Thing; issues where something happens quickly have people 
actively remembering them and so less need to track them in a tracker, 
issues with less activity over time have more use for being tracked.  We 
might decide in some cases that a page in projects/ or on the wiki is a 
better way to track some sorts of feature ideas than the bug database, but 
simply closing without moving elsewhere would be wrong.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|2005-09-24 17:07:47         |2008-03-30 20:03:26
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
When we moved to git, gcc-cvs has become what this bug has requested. In that
it sends the exact patch which was committed to the list now.

An example is https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-September/352936.html

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-04-29 00:15 -------
I would love to see this as I have use cvs to revert a patch which causes a problem.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
   Last reconfirmed|2004-01-29 01:12:03         |2004-04-29 00:15:05
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634

[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[neroden@gcc.gnu.org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634


neroden@gcc.gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-05-23 06:59:00
               date|                            |





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.