From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56743 invoked by alias); 12 May 2015 13:59:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 56731 invoked by uid 89); 12 May 2015 13:59:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f50.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f50.google.com) (209.85.218.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 May 2015 13:59:53 +0000 Received: by oiko83 with SMTP id o83so6477347oik.1 for ; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:59:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.158.138 with SMTP id wu10mr12202324obb.12.1431439191540; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.54.14 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:59:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 14:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names From: "H.J. Lu" To: Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01085.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> > >> > I promised to send out my pat^Whack. Before building I introduce >> > gcc/FULL-VER as copy of gcc/BASE-VER and adjust gcc/BASE-VER to >> > just the major number. Then I only need the following small >> > patch (where I don't speak enough tcl for fixing libjava.exp "properly"). >> > >> > Without the FULL-VER trick the patch would be much larger (BASE-VER >> > is referenced a lot). For a "real" patch (including configury) we >> > probably want to generate a BASE-VER in the toplevel (or have >> > a @BASE-VER@ substitute). >> > >> >> What is wrong to print "prerelease" with "gcc -v" on GCC 5 branch? If >> it isn't a prerelease, what is it? And let's call it what it is. > > It's not a pre-release - it's a post-release. We had confused > customers about this (and patched out that "prerelease" wording > while at the same time decreasing the patchlevel number, thus > instead of 4.8.4 (prerelease) [... revision 123] we shipped with 4.8.3 > [... revision 123]). > > prerelease just sounds wrong. > So we have experimental release post-release Why not just rename prerelease to post-release? That is a one-line change. -- H.J.