From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.160.84]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9087F3858C52 for ; Mon, 13 May 2024 06:52:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9087F3858C52 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 9087F3858C52 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=129.70.160.84 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715583138; cv=none; b=l/8qD9tWNQQPEu6wjxH1WATNu0k2+8L4A1+r9uKd12MV/wDga9g0/bzCfss1/mgrnRsrjFGnUv4yhm4DvyIJf2dFjXxXvRMDGid5eEWie5sGH8m18YtRB3n6DItjp838YHhr2TGZdGsm1mlUVNV3ZYSo5xOqA3PkNUhHOGuraH0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715583138; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8E6KOf0nz1z8CHBR0RFhgzgdX+nvcgQKEAtL6QlE2FY=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=YZzjJVIFbWKAtwaO83BnfYuw6I36sOTqmGwdSo1/wT+89fNqpLQyEvZ1NugrKifYcqy6Xe35fn16QNwsbT/OH926R1lJPsfx44MS9eAkuHXzSi/TNbE5pvvjg1RVMOkkVTC5I5Cgqb7v9tZqI7pEglPU++dqefE6YytuN1enDsw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751B1CAB35; Mon, 13 May 2024 08:52:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de; h=content-type:content-type :mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:date :references:subject:subject:from:from:received:received; s= 20200306; t=1715583136; bh=8E6KOf0nz1z8CHBR0RFhgzgdX+nvcgQKEAtL6 QlE2FY=; b=XXPC/Yz102ttiaIQMeE1pCyj/tBYGawXHpz6N7hX3A8FrIQpoOrWl OwdShq/L/b6O5RUxgIx5ndYg0Z89/luZBKzFRzVWMkThptNvDsNz8XnFYNTAQfMQ gwnmZbEAov2nZSQZaCU+E5Lugpd4q2LQB40+KtN6WZXKaOhCZzFJAUvIDZ0XUz1C N/SPia4MQivmrqvy2Q+FxYn6tnsTe6tsZFiWziT0hHDHZV3suV0zGlXMtOby4x7b TQ1milwsMyuy4YYlBo3XBCBGCXGh+L2CjHV31mx4b9vRfjr+SzSlWInwL0IMHWQ+ R+B/12vC/DBo0+uLucj/dtIF87v16CjyA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id lcY1Ccrgw1Ra; Mon, 13 May 2024 08:52:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (p508551cc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.133.81.204]) (Authenticated sender: ro) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06B00CA6D9; Mon, 13 May 2024 08:52:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Rainer Orth To: Richard Biener Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Hans-Peter Nilsson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc/DATESTAMP wasn't updated since 20240507 References: Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 08:52:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Fri, 10 May 2024 08:51:09 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3782.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, 9 May 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:14:43PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: >> > > I just noticed that gcc/DATESTAMP wasn't updated yesterday and today, >> > > staying at 20240507. >> > >> > I think it is because of the r15-268 commit, we do support >> > This reverts commit ... >> > when the referenced commit contains a ChangeLog message, but here >> > it doesn't, as it is a revert commit. >> >> Indeed and also the r15-311 commit. >> Please don't Revert Revert, we don't really support that, had to fix it all >> by hand. > > I do wonder if we can run the ChangeLog processing checks as part of > the pre-commit hook and reject such pushes. It seems we have two > implementations, one in the pre-commit hook and the processing itself > rather than having a single implementation that can run in two modes? Unfortunately, the datestamp is again stuck at 20240509. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University