Re: Patch for EGCS references in contrib/release

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

  In message <Pine.BSF.4.31.0012240132200.78780-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
you write:
  > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
  > > What was used to generate the mysterious 2.95.2.1 that exists on
  > > gcc.gnu.org but is not retrievable by ftp from there, and on a few mirror
  > s
  > > but not e.g. either of the UK ones, and doesn't seem to have been
  > > announced, to have a release announcement / release notes web page, etc.?
  > 
  > You'll have to ask Jeff. He started rolling 2.95.2.1, but there was a
  > minor problem and he seems kind of seriously overloaded now. :-(
Holidays can do that :-)  I'm catching up on a variety of things now...

  > > It doesn't look like contrib/release, given that there were no changes
  > > in the diff to the files copied from htdocs by that script.
  > 
  > I suppose he used the original version of contrib/release.
A hacked up one which ensured that the FAQ and other web related content
was identical to the gcc-2.95.2 stuff.

  > > Could web/973 be addressed in time to get a FAQ of releasable quality [of
  > > course someone needs to do the work to get it exported from the FOM for
  > > inclusion in releases] for 2.95.3, or will there be some kludge to keep
  > > the same FAQ version as in 2.95.2?
  > 
  > Jeff, can you please give Joseph F-O-M maintainer access?
I can.  However, I think we have a serious open question about whether or
not we're going to stick with FOM based on the questions/comments I've
seen today.

Basically I see little advantage to using FOM if the user community at large
isn't contributing.  If there aren't significant contributions from the 
wider user community, then I think we should go back to the old style
faq.html.

jeff