From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2282 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 15:04:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 2273 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 15:04:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:04:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IF4LYB021920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:04:21 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3IF4KXX004200; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:04:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8ED7F3.8010708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:10:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit 1/3] Import gnulib's update-copyright script References: <1325665146-31682-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1325665146-31682-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <4F8EB486.5020308@redhat.com> <20120418143606.GA2852@adacore.com> <4F8ED35E.1040208@redhat.com> <20120418145225.GC2852@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120418145225.GC2852@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00585.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2012 03:52 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I don't see how that scripts would have prevented the selective >> check-in. :-) > > Perhaps not, but what I would have done was doing an update first, > check that in, and then add the new module. WDYT? Yes, that or the other way around, is the right way to do update gnulib. We should never end up with a mix of files from different versions, as that gets messy and undone with the next import. See how Yao imported inttypes recently -- he imported it from that same 2010 version. > >> It may help by keeping the git version in some script variable, that >> the script checks, instead of having to fetch the version from the >> ChangeLog? The new gnulib/ parent directory seems like a good place >> for this stuff. > > Sure. Since there does not appear to be gnulib releases, I was > under the impression that we'd always go with the current head, > somehow. Yeah, but of the whole gnulib as a unit. There's a lot of dependencies between the modules. And there's no telling if some random import would break some host, due to some gnulib, so it's best if we know exactly which version was used. > Having the hash in the script is a good idea, makes > things completely reproduceable... Exactly. Okay, we're in violent agreement at this point. :-) I'll go update gnulib to the current version. -- Pedro Alves