* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
@ 2004-09-09 21:50 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-09 23:30 ` Mike Stump
` (2 more replies)
2004-09-09 21:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2004-09-09 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
> Normally, I would just check this in... but today, I shall ask for
> approval...
branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major
versions (mutatis mutandis for this case where the version number changes
on mainline without an associated branch). It is however out of date with
regard to Gerald's changes to do snapshots from multiple branches; some
special measures may be needed so that the first 4.0 snapshot has diffs
from the last 3.5 one (and branching.html should document the applicable
special measures).
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:50 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-09 23:30 ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 23:36 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-10 0:00 ` Daniel Berlin
[not found] ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
2004-09-11 20:55 ` SC decision on version numbering: 4.0 Gerald Pfeifer
2 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2004-09-09 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major
> versions
http://gcc.gnu.org/branching.html
16. Update the email parsing script to handle bugs against the new
versions. The script is in CVS at
wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib/bug_email.pl. Search for an existing version
(like "3.3"), and update both places it occurs to handle the new
version through copy and paste.
Doing diffs in wwwdocs/bugzilla/contrib:
*** ./bug_email.pl.~1~ Thu Aug 26 10:19:45 2004
--- ./bug_email.pl Thu Sep 9 15:06:34 2004
*************** sub writeBugIntoDB
*** 302,309 ****
my($version) = "";
my($release) = $fields{"Release"};
if ($release ne "") {
! if ($release =~ /.*3\.5\.0.*/o) {
! $version = "3.5.0";
}
elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.4\.3.*/o) {
$version = "3.4.3";
--- 302,312 ----
my($version) = "";
my($release) = $fields{"Release"};
if ($release ne "") {
! if ($release =~ /.*4\.0\.0.*/o) {
! $version = "4.0.0";
! }
! elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.5\.0.*/o) {
! $version = "4.0.0";
}
elsif ($release =~ /.*3\.4\.3.*/o) {
$version = "3.4.3";
--------------
Ok?
I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove
it entirely.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 23:30 ` Mike Stump
@ 2004-09-09 23:36 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-10 0:15 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-09-10 13:00 ` Dave Korn
2004-09-10 0:00 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2004-09-09 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
> entirely.
We have 2.96 and 2.97 versions in the database, which track that bugs were
reported against mainline in given date ranges, though there were no such
releases. But in the present instance the database seems to have been
bulk converted from 3.5 to 4.0 without keeping such a distinction in the
reported versions.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 23:36 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-10 0:15 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-09-10 13:00 ` Dave Korn
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-09-10 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Mike Stump, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
>> entirely.
>
> We have 2.96 and 2.97 versions in the database, which track that bugs were
> reported against mainline in given date ranges, though there were no such
> releases. But in the present instance the database seems to have been
> bulk converted from 3.5 to 4.0 without keeping such a distinction in the
> reported versions.
Wasn't me, :)
I think andrew did it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* RE: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 23:36 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-10 0:15 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2004-09-10 13:00 ` Dave Korn
2004-09-10 17:51 ` Mike Stump
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2004-09-10 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Joseph S. Myers', 'Mike Stump'
Cc: 'Per Bothner', 'GCC Mailing List', gcc-patches
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Joseph S. Myers
> Sent: 10 September 2004 00:29
> To: Mike Stump
> Cc: Per Bothner; GCC Mailing List; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
>
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
[...ker-snip!...]
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
^^^^^^^
Hey! I just found another bit that needs patching! 8^D
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-10 13:00 ` Dave Korn
@ 2004-09-10 17:51 ` Mike Stump
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2004-09-10 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Korn
Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers', 'Per Bothner',
'GCC Mailing List',
gcc-patches
On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 05:07 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
>> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for
>> GCC 3.5
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Hey! I just found another bit that needs patching! 8^D
Ok, thanks for noticing... I broke into his machine (boy was that
easy, it's an unpacthed Windows box) and updated his signature file.
:-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 23:30 ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 23:36 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-10 0:00 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-09-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump
Cc: Joseph S. Myers, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
>
> Ok?
Yup.
>
> I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
> entirely.
>
The version no longer exists in bugzilla, so doing that is a bad idea.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>]
* Snapshots? (was Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0)
[not found] ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
@ 2004-09-10 1:16 ` Phil Edwards
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2004-09-10 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Joseph S. Myers, gcc-patches, gcc
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:55:53PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> Checked in as (now) obvious. The other two are checked in as well, and
> I don't understand that any more changes are necessary. Let me know if
> I got that wrong.
I /thknk/ you got them all.
> maintainer-scripts might need caressing... I see:
>
> 43 17 * * 7 sh /home/gccadmin/scripts/gcc_release -s 3.5:HEAD
> -l -d /sourceware/snapshot-tmp/gcc all
>
> in crontab, but am unsure if bumping this to 4.0.0 (or 4.0) is
> correct/wise.
Yes but not yet, would be my vote.
> Also, that would require updating a crontab for
> gccadmin, whcih I think I just want to punt to the _right_ person...
I can handle the gccadmin part, IIRC.
--
To begin the test, pull the power plug from the UPS. The first time that
you do this, psychologically it won't be easy, but after you have pulled the
plug a few times, you may even come to enjoy it. - apcupsd manual
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:50 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-09 23:30 ` Mike Stump
[not found] ` <C8A43CC3-02BB-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com>
@ 2004-09-11 20:55 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-09-11 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Mike Stump, Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> branching.html lists all the places that need changing for new major
> versions (mutatis mutandis for this case where the version number changes
> on mainline without an associated branch). It is however out of date with
> regard to Gerald's changes to do snapshots from multiple branches; some
> special measures may be needed so that the first 4.0 snapshot has diffs
> from the last 3.5 one (and branching.html should document the applicable
> special measures).
Done thusly.
That won't win a beauty contest, but it works reasonably well.
Gerald
Index: branching.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/branching.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -3 -p -r1.16 branching.html
--- branching.html 27 Aug 2004 16:13:32 -0000 1.16
+++ branching.html 11 Sep 2004 19:53:17 -0000
@@ -45,14 +45,20 @@ release branch, the current release seri
<li>Update <code>doc/include/gcc-common.texi</code> on the branch to use
<code>@clear DEVELOPMENT</code>.</li>
-<li>Update <code>maintainer-scripts/gcc_release</code> on the
-mainline, where it says "# For now snapshots come from the
-mainline.", to make snapshots come from the branch instead.
-Also update the description of where snapshots come from in
-<code>maintainer-scripts/snapshot-README</code>.
-(Also, <code>cvs update</code> will also need to be run in the scripts
-directory in the <code>gccadmin</code> account, to update the version
-actually called from cron.)</li>
+<li>Update <code>maintainer-scripts/crontab</code> on the mainline by
+adding an entry to make shapshots of the new branch and adjusting the
+version number of the mainline snapshots.
+Run <code>cvs update</code> in the <code>scripts</code> directory of
+the gccadmin account, and then actually install the updated crontab
+there.
+<br />
+Generate the next mainline snapshot manually, using the <code>-p</code>
+option of the <code>gcc_release</code> script. For that single run,
+adjust the script such that the announcement mail is sent to you
+personally so that you can adjust references to the previous snapshot
+in the <code>README</code> and <code>index.html</code> files of the
+new snapshot as well as the mail itself before relaying it.
+</li>
<li><a href="translation.html#regen">Regenerate
<code>gcc.pot</code></a> and <code>cpplib.pot</code>.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 21:50 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2004-09-09 21:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-09 21:59 ` Robert Dewar
2004-09-09 22:19 ` Mark Mitchell
3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2004-09-09 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
| On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
| > The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
| > the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
| > Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
| > Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
| > argument compelling.
|
| Normally, I would just check this in... but today, I shall ask for
| approval...
|
|
| Ok?
Does it fall under the obvious rule?
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
2004-09-09 21:50 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-09 21:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2004-09-09 21:59 ` Robert Dewar
2004-09-09 22:19 ` Mark Mitchell
3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2004-09-09 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
>> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
>> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
>> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
>> argument compelling.
>
>
> Normally, I would just check this in... but today, I shall ask for
> approval...
Ah, does that have to be unanimous approval? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
2004-09-09 21:43 ` Mike Stump
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 21:59 ` Robert Dewar
@ 2004-09-09 22:19 ` Mark Mitchell
3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2004-09-09 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Stump; +Cc: Per Bothner, GCC Mailing List, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Patches
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>> The Steering Committee has decided that the the version number of
>> the next mainline-based tree-ssa-based release should be "4.0".
>> Some people preferred 3.95, but most preferred 4.0, finding
>> Robert Dewar's (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01480.html)
>> argument compelling.
>
>
> Normally, I would just check this in... but today, I shall ask for
> approval...
Yes, this is OK -- but please do work with Joseph/Gerald to make sure
that any other issues that Joseph raised are dealt with.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread