Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Joseph S. Myers]

The following reply was made to PR other/1634; it has been noted by GNATS.

>From jsm28@cam.ac.uk  Mon Jan 13 00:59:45 2003
From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Cc: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,  <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 20:33:48 +0000 (GMT)

 On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
 
 > To what extent is this request superseded by the links in gcc-cvs messages to 
 > the cvsweb pages giving precisely the corresponding patches?
 
 It isn't.  Following hundreds of links a day of the offchance that one
 might be wrongly reverting something or wrongly committing something isn't
 a reasonable solution to the problem.  The idea of this wishlist request
 is that the patches themselves go by in email - exactly as committed,
 which may differ from how they were sent to gcc-patches, or they may not
 have been sent to gcc-patches - for bogus reversions, or bogus changes
 (e.g. other changes in the same tree that weren't part of the given patch
 and shouldn't have been committed) to be spotted.
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Joseph S. Myers]

The following reply was made to PR other/1634; it has been noted by GNATS.

>From jsm28@cam.ac.uk  Mon Jan 13 01:00:32 2003
From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>,  <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>, 
     <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:02:05 +0000 (GMT)

 On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
 
 > Also so that years later it is easy to get hands on the complete change
 > committed to CVS as a unit, for backporting or whatever.
 
 And for use to rerun changes in case recovery from backups is needed.  
 (Some CVS operations, e.g. tagging, don't have a mechanism by which they 
 can run scripts to send mail etc..  It would be useful if any replacement 
 version control system allowed every write operation to run a script given 
 full information about the operation, so a proper distributed audit trail 
 of changes like this can be created.)
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Zack Weinberg]

The following reply was made to PR other/1634; it has been noted by GNATS.

>From zack@codesourcery.com  Mon Jan 13 01:00:24 2003
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>,  <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
	  <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:51:56 -0800

 "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
 
 > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
 >
 >> To what extent is this request superseded by the links in gcc-cvs messages to 
 >> the cvsweb pages giving precisely the corresponding patches?
 >
 > It isn't.  Following hundreds of links a day of the offchance that one
 > might be wrongly reverting something or wrongly committing something isn't
 > a reasonable solution to the problem.  The idea of this wishlist request
 > is that the patches themselves go by in email - exactly as committed,
 > which may differ from how they were sent to gcc-patches, or they may not
 > have been sent to gcc-patches - for bogus reversions, or bogus changes
 > (e.g. other changes in the same tree that weren't part of the given patch
 > and shouldn't have been committed) to be spotted.
 
 Also so that years later it is easy to get hands on the complete change
 committed to CVS as a unit, for backporting or whatever.
 
 zw

Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Nathanael Nerode]

The following reply was made to PR other/1634; it has been noted by GNATS.

>From neroden@twcny.rr.com  Mon Jan 13 00:59:14 2003
From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:36:56 -0500

 To what extent is this request superseded by the links in gcc-cvs messages to 
 the cvsweb pages giving precisely the corresponding patches?
 
 --Nathanael

other/1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

[Joseph Myers]

>Number:         1634
>Category:       other
>Synopsis:       Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Jan 12 10:46:01 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Joseph S. Myers
>Release:        2.97 20010112 (experimental)
>Organization:
none
>Environment:
System: Linux decomino 2.2.18 #1 Sun Jan 7 21:04:55 UTC 2001 i686 unknown
Architecture: i686

	
host: i686-pc-linux-gnu
build: i686-pc-linux-gnu
target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
configured with: ../gcc-cvs/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/snapshot --disable-shared --enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib
>Description:

Could we please have a gcc-cvs-patches list, with all patches
automatically sent to it exactly as they are committed to CVS?

>How-To-Repeat:

Observe bogus changes in a commit not covered by the ChangeLog entry
or commit message, that could be more quickly detected if an automatic
mailing of committed patches were available.

>Fix:

Adapt the machinery that creates the gcc-cvs messages to also create
gcc-cvs-patches ones.  These should include proper diffs for added /
deleted files, and for files that diff counts as binary; I suggest
-uapN as suitable GNU diff options, with the patch getting gzipped and
uuencoded if it is very large or passes some tests indicating it might
get corrupted in mailing (contains control characters other than
newline / tab / form feed or very long lines).
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
>From rth@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 2001
From: rth@gcc.gnu.org
To: rth@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/364
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010211181600.26021.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg01143.html
Content-length: 721

The following reply was made to PR c/364; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: rth@gcc.gnu.org
To: and@genesyslab.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
  rth@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/364
Date: 11 Feb 2001 18:09:56 -0000

 Synopsis: error 'initializer element is not constant'
 
 Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->rth
 Responsible-Changed-By: rth
 Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Feb 11 10:09:56 2001
 Responsible-Changed-Why:
     Mine.
 State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
 State-Changed-By: rth
 State-Changed-When: Sun Feb 11 10:09:56 2001
 State-Changed-Why:
     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-02/msg00599.html
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=364&database=gcc