This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: gcc_release script, snapshots, and LAST_UPDATED version

From: Gary Funck <gary at intrepid dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Gcc Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:03:27 -0800
Subject: Re: gcc_release script, snapshots, and LAST_UPDATED version
References: <20101220014438.GI24726@intrepid.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012201153500.3140@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On 12/20/10 11:54:51, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> It's LAST_UPDATED, not LAST_CHANGED.  This is significant; the revision 
> number is indeed the revision at which the source tree was last updated, 
> not the revision at which the branch was last changed.

OK.  How is LAST_UPDATED more useful than LAST_CHANGED?  I would have
thought that it would be useful to know the last version on the branch
that is being snap-shotted.

What I wanted to do is to avoid creating a new snapshot (which are being
made daily) if there were no changes to the branch since the last snapshot.
Clearly, the script that makes this decision can't use LAST_UPDATED directly.
However, since "LAST_CHANGED" can be derived from LAST_UPDATED,
I can see where it is more general.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc_release script, snapshots, and LAST_UPDATED version
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- gcc_release script, snapshots, and LAST_UPDATED version
  - From: Gary Funck
- Re: gcc_release script, snapshots, and LAST_UPDATED version
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]