From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30482 invoked by alias); 28 May 2008 18:31:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 30469 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2008 18:30:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from us02smtp2.synopsys.com (HELO alvesta.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.77) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 May 2008 18:30:39 +0000 Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170]) by alvesta.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57BEE60; Wed, 28 May 2008 11:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27874; Wed, 28 May 2008 11:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id m4SIUbZg003761; Wed, 28 May 2008 11:30:37 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m4SIUVBw003760; Wed, 28 May 2008 11:30:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:31:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Richard Guenther Cc: NightStrike , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots Message-ID: <20080528183031.GB32225@synopsys.com> References: <84fc9c000805271449v61f4c371l16c3ffec20fb4188@mail.gmail.com> <20080527222324.GS23682@synopsys.com> <20080528171301.GA32225@synopsys.com> <84fc9c000805281115i3ec60c89jccbd2bef71027ac@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000805281115i3ec60c89jccbd2bef71027ac@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck wrote: > >> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval > >> > is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch. > >> > >> I thought that's how it worked already. > > > > No, a new 4.1 snapshot was created May 26, even though the last checkin > > was April 8. > > That's because the tree is still daily updated with the DATESTAMP changes. Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.