* Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches @ 2003-04-23 7:40 Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 7:45 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc 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. It appears that (thanks, Gerald) old branches are still being updated. It might be desirable that we extend non-bumping to those branches as well. Gerald suggested I bring the issue here before taking any explicit action -- stopping version bump on gcc-3_2-branch and, if agreed, also on old branches. So here I am. Opinions? -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 7:40 Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 7:45 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards 2003-04-23 8:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2003-04-23 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: gcc 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? For that matter, what are most of these scripts written in? If it's perl, we really should just keep a simple (tab or comma) delimited flat file (or mysql, though i think that's overkill) database. that has the current branches, and a description of each, and have these scripts pull from it. You could also make the web page pull the descriptions from the db, too, be it on the fly or once a day. It seems every time someone adds or obsoletes a branch, there are 50 places that need to be updated, rather than 1. If these scripts are in perl or python, i'll happily volunteer to make them do this. My awk/sed/sh foo just ain't good enough, however, and i'm actually proud of that. :) If it's a simple ascii file database of some sort, we could keep it in the repo and regen the web page on commit. > It appears that (thanks, Gerald) old branches are still being updated. > It might be desirable that we extend non-bumping to those branches as > well. > > Gerald suggested I bring the issue here before taking any explicit > action -- stopping version bump on gcc-3_2-branch and, if agreed, also > on old branches. So here I am. > > Opinions? > > -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 7:45 ` Daniel Berlin @ 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards 2003-04-23 9:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 8:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Phil Edwards @ 2003-04-23 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc 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. Phil -- If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards @ 2003-04-23 9:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Edwards; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, gcc Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes: | 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. The primary goal of my original message isn't about rewriting anything in whatever language. I'm just asking for opinions about not bumping gcc/version.c on old and/or closed branches. Rewriting is a separate issue and I'm not sure it was really proposed. -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards 2003-04-23 9:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 11:46 ` Joseph S. Myers 2003-04-23 15:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2003-04-23 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Edwards; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc 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 $1;}' (or whatever) if we were to use a list of active branches. --Dan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin @ 2003-04-23 11:46 ` Joseph S. Myers 2003-04-23 15:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2003-04-23 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gcc On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote: > In this case, it looks like we would be changing > BRANCHES=`$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. Extracting the branches from CVS rather than maintaining a list manually in the crontab was considered an improvement as it reduced the number of steps required in the branch creation process <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-02/msg01588.html>. So, if you want to maintain a list of active branches (maintainer-scripts/active-branches - maintainer-scripts being checked out in ~gccadmin/scripts, albeit that at present cvs update needs to be run there manually after changes and the new crontab installed manually after changes), create a gcc_branch script to handle most of the branch creation process (including updating active-branches). (Closing a branch would be a much simpler process, just removing the line from active-branches and updating the home page list of branch status.) (Of course a gcc_branch script would need testing - an rsynced repository copy is probably the simplest way of doing that testing.) Various bits of releasing.html could also be automated that aren't at present (whether in gcc_release or in a separate script). -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 11:46 ` Joseph S. Myers @ 2003-04-23 15:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-04-23 15:23 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-04-23 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: Phil Edwards, Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:08:38AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > 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 $1;}' > > (or whatever) > if we were to use a list of active branches. Can I suggest a list of inactive branches instead? It's not as natural, but it seems that by default we always want the version bumped until the branch is explicitly retired; this could be part of retiring it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 15:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-04-23 15:23 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, Phil Edwards, gcc Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes: [...] | Can I suggest a list of inactive branches instead? It's not as | natural, but it seems that by default we always want the version bumped | until the branch is explicitly retired; this could be part of retiring | it. This is an interesting proposal. May I suggest that we bump versions for all active branches, not just those the tags of which happen to match 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$'? -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 7:45 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards @ 2003-04-23 8:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-05-02 9:44 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-04-23 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gcc Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes: | 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? sh. | For that matter, what are most of these scripts written in? | If it's perl, we really should just keep a simple (tab or comma) | delimited flat file (or mysql, though i think that's overkill) | database. | that has the current branches, and a description of each, and have | these scripts pull from it. | You could also make the web page pull the descriptions from the db, | too, be it on the fly or once a day. | It seems every time someone adds or obsoletes a branch, there are | 50 places that need to be updated, rather than 1. strongly agreed with your suggestion. | If these scripts are in perl or python, i'll happily volunteer to make | them do this. | My awk/sed/sh foo just ain't good enough, however, and i'm actually | proud of that. | :) :-) Thanks for the prompt answer. After I raised the issue with Gerald, he was kind enough to do my homework and pointed out that the actual script is taken from: egcs/maintainer-scripts/update_version The bits that are of interest are: # Compute the branches which we should update. $CVS co gcc/ChangeLog BRANCHES=`$CVS status -v gcc/ChangeLog \ | awk '{print $1;}' \ | egrep 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$'` # Always update the mainline. BRANCHES="${BRANCHES} HEAD" Indeed we could just use a plain ascii file as db for active branches names. My first question would be: Do people think that we should stop updating gcc/version.c on old or obsoleted branches? -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-04-23 8:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-05-02 9:44 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-05-02 13:48 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-05-02 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, gcc, gcc-patches On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > My first question would be: Do people think that we should stop > updating gcc/version.c on old or obsoleted branches? Somehow this proposal lead to a bikeshed, and in general Gaby's suggestion only got positive responses, so after waiting one week I implemented the most conservative of all proposals in the most low-tech way per the patch below. Tested on gcc.gnu.org and installed on mainline. Gerald 2003-05-02 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> * update_version (IGNORE_BRANCHES): Add. (BRANCHES): Do not consider branches matching $IGNORE_BRANCHES. Index: update_version =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/maintainer-scripts/update_version,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -3 -p -r1.9 update_version --- update_version 2 May 2003 09:13:52 -0000 1.9 +++ update_version 2 May 2003 09:35:48 -0000 @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ #!/bin/sh -# Run this from /tmp. CVSROOT=${CVSROOT:-/cvs/gcc} +IGNORE_BRANCHES='gcc-(2_95|3_0|3_1|3_2)-branch' + +# Run this from /tmp. export CVSROOT /bin/rm -rf /tmp/$$ /bin/mkdir /tmp/$$ @@ -14,7 +16,8 @@ CVS=${CVS:-/usr/local/bin/cvs} $CVS co gcc/ChangeLog BRANCHES=`$CVS status -v gcc/ChangeLog \ | awk '{print $1;}' \ - | egrep 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$'` + | egrep 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$' \ + | egrep -v $IGNORE_BRANCHES` # Always update the mainline. BRANCHES="${BRANCHES} HEAD" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches 2003-05-02 9:44 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-05-02 13:48 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-05-02 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, gcc, gcc-patches Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes: | On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > My first question would be: Do people think that we should stop | > updating gcc/version.c on old or obsoleted branches? | | Somehow this proposal lead to a bikeshed, and in general Gaby's suggestion | only got positive responses, so after waiting one week I implemented the | most conservative of all proposals in the most low-tech way per the patch | below. Thank you very much for taking care of this. -- Gaby ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-02 13:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-04-23 7:40 Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 7:45 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 8:08 ` Phil Edwards 2003-04-23 9:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 11:39 ` Daniel Berlin 2003-04-23 11:46 ` Joseph S. Myers 2003-04-23 15:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-04-23 15:23 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-04-23 8:49 ` Gabriel Dos Reis 2003-05-02 9:44 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2003-05-02 13:48 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).