GCC 4.1 snapshots

GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Gerald Pfeifer]

At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
and trunk.  Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
of these.

A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any further
GCC 4.1.x releases and the speed of changes on that branch has noticably 
slowed down.

My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots" 
is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will
be happy to roll a new snapshot upon request in case someone (like a
GNU/Linux or BSD distribution would like to see one for their packages)
in that case.

If there is agreement, I am happy to take the appropriate technical
steps.

Thoughts?

Gerald

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Richard Guenther]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
> and trunk.  Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
> of these.
>
> A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any further
> GCC 4.1.x releases and the speed of changes on that branch has noticably
> slowed down.
>
> My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots"
> is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will
> be happy to roll a new snapshot upon request in case someone (like a
> GNU/Linux or BSD distribution would like to see one for their packages)
> in that case.
>
> If there is agreement, I am happy to take the appropriate technical
> steps.
>
> Thoughts?

I'd rather close the 4.2 branch than the 4.1 one.  Unfortunately the FSF
has put us in a situation where we can't do any more 4.1 releases.  Can we
slow down the 4.1 snapshot interval to 4 weeks instead?

Thanks,
Richard.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> > My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots"
> > is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will
> > be happy to roll a new snapshot upon request in case someone (like a
> > GNU/Linux or BSD distribution would like to see one for their packages)
> > in that case.

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:49:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I'd rather close the 4.2 branch than the 4.1 one.  Unfortunately the FSF
> has put us in a situation where we can't do any more 4.1 releases.  Can we
> slow down the 4.1 snapshot interval to 4 weeks instead?

There haven't been any changes since April 8, so in the meantime about six
identical snapshots went out.  A 4-week interval still would have produced
a wasted snapshot.

A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[NightStrike]

On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> 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.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Mark Mitchell]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
> and trunk.  Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
> of these.

I agree that turning off the 4.1 snapshots makes sense.  If you're 
sufficiently motivated to do the automatic 
snapshot-only-if-something-changed, that seems fine too -- but from the 
FSF point of view 4.1 is now dormant.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> 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.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> 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.

Richard.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> 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.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> > >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> 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.

The snapshots know nothing of whether there were any changes on the branch 
at all.

I'd rather just close the branch (disable the update of DATESTAMP, disable 
snapshots, close bugs only open as 4.1 regressions after updating the 
milestones to indicate where they were fixed, switch other bugs marked as 
4.1 regressions to more recent milestones and remove "4.1/" from their 
summaries) than add extra complexity for the sake of a dead branch.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Ah.  Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no
> > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The snapshots know nothing of whether there were any changes on the branch 
> at all.
> 
> I'd rather just close the branch (disable the update of DATESTAMP, disable 
> snapshots, close bugs only open as 4.1 regressions after updating the 
> milestones to indicate where they were fixed, switch other bugs marked as 
> 4.1 regressions to more recent milestones and remove "4.1/" from their 
> summaries) than add extra complexity for the sake of a dead branch.

I does seem like a lot of work for little gain.  Suggestion withdrawn.

I did a search (summary contains all of the strings in
"4.1 regression", summary does not contain the string "4.2"), and got
103 bugs.  Assuming that they are all marked correctly, these would
all close.