Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>]

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.

--Dan