From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5406 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2002 02:29:17 -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 5281 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2002 02:29:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 2002 02:29:11 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1M2Su503739; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:29:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:33:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: "Joseph S. Myers" cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: GCC 3.0.4 Released Message-ID: <86790000.1014344936@warlock.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg01245.txt.bz2 --On Friday, February 22, 2002 01:38:00 AM +0000 "Joseph S. Myers" wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> Perhaps -f without -p should just result in gcc_release issuing an error >> message and stopping. > > The trouble with that is that when releasing 3.1, you probably don't want > diffs from a previous (3.0.4) release. (Diffs from a 3.1 prerelease or a > snapshot would be useful for some people - but it isn't so clear that they > should be mandated.) Well, gcc_release knows what's a major release and what's a minor release. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com