From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8308 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2015 08:18:15 -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 8291 invoked by uid 89); 20 Apr 2015 08:18:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:18:13 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.133] (vie-91-186-145-235.dsl.sil.at [91.186.145.235]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3A323F420; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 04:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:18:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Jonathan Wakely cc: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Update changes.html with libstdc++ changes In-Reply-To: <20150408111439.GM9755@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20141206164058.GZ3134@redhat.com> <20150408111439.GM9755@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00992.txt.bz2 On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> The only drawback of this, and some similar cases, is that we now >> risk referring to older versions on a release branch. > Yes, I realised that problem when making the change and linking to the > versions that were current at the time. One option would be to add a > gcc-4.8 symlink that points to the latest gcc-4.8.x version, but that > adds more work for the release managers and only has a small benefit. Agreed. > Alternatively, since we only tend to have four or five releases from a > branch, we could just update them manually when we remember to. That's > only necessary until the branch closes, at which point the latest > release won't change. It's not a huge problem if the links don't go > to the latest docs immediately IMHO. Agreed, and agreed. Let's just keep an eye on it and (try to) update when a new release of an existing branch comes out. Gerald