From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24640 invoked by alias); 30 May 2008 00:11:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 24631 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2008 00:11:05 -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; Fri, 30 May 2008 00:10:41 +0000 Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23]) by alvesta.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F9C1880; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29438; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:10:39 -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 m4U0Acxg020871; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:10:38 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m4U0AXjJ020870; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:10:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 00:11:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Richard Guenther , NightStrike , Gerald Pfeifer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots Message-ID: <20080530001033.GC21118@synopsys.com> References: <84fc9c000805271449v61f4c371l16c3ffec20fb4188@mail.gmail.com> <20080527222324.GS23682@synopsys.com> <20080528171301.GA32225@synopsys.com> <84fc9c000805281115i3ec60c89jccbd2bef71027ac@mail.gmail.com> <20080528183031.GB32225@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00445.txt.bz2 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.