From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14113 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 13:07:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14104 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 13:07:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 13:07:33 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198JyL-0006QO-00; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:07:37 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 198Jy4-0006hG-00; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:07:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Phil Edwards , Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches Message-ID: <20030423130720.GA24462@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Berlin , Phil Edwards , Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20030423072625.GA29131@disaster.jaj.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01149.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:08:38AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Phil Edwards wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 03:21:39AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> > >>On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 02:41 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>> As I announced earlier, the branch gcc-3_2-branch will be closed > >>>after GCC-3.2.3 is realesed. By that I really mean that we don't > >>>have > >>>anything like GCC-3.2.4 floating around. My inclination is to have > >>>the conjob that currently bumps gcc/version.c not touch > >>>gcc-3_2-branch. > >>> > >>What is this script written in? > > > >top level, maintainer-scripts/update_version > > > >It's just sh, most of them are. I wouldn't want to see them rewritten > >in perl, to be honest. And most of them that do use sh are pretty > >straightforward. > > I wasn't proposing rewriting, it's just i didn't want to tamper with > scripts written in a language > i'm not familiar with the nuances of. > So I asked what they were written in, since I didn't want to make a > suggestion > without being able to at least conditionally volunteer to implement it. > :) > > In this case, it looks like we would be changing > BRANCHES=`$CVS status -v gcc/ChangeLog \ > | awk '{print $1;}' \ > | egrep 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$'` > > to something like > BRANCHES=`cat gcc/active-branches` \ > | awk '{print $1;}' > > (or whatever) > if we were to use a list of active branches. Can I suggest a list of inactive branches instead? It's not as natural, but it seems that by default we always want the version bumped until the branch is explicitly retired; this could be part of retiring it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer