This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


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

Re: snapshot version numbers?


On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 07:04:49PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> | I noticed somebody started updating __GLIBCPP__ on a nightly basis. Thanks.

If the 'daily bump' messages from gccadmin start piling up in the cvs[web]
logs, making browsing the c++config history tedious, we might consider
moving that define to its own tiny header.


> | > So, the version on the branch stays at 3.0.0, but we should change the
> | > version on the trunk to 3.1 now?  That works for me, but we should also
> | > figure out how we're going to name snapshots that happen before the gcc
> | > 3.1 release.  (Did that make any sense?)
> | 
> | Yes. I would think that both head and branch should be bumped to 3.0.1. 
> 
> I would prefer libstdc++ from mainline matches mainline g++ version
> (similary for branch).

I agree with both of you.  (Ha!)  That is, this is one point at which
I wouldn't mind that the sources differ on branch and trunk.  I feel the
mainline version should match the gcc version (or at least be guided by it;
we may want something more specific than just "3.1").

I also feel that the branch version for both us /and/ gcc needs to go to
3.0.1, since that's the project at hand.


> | One thing we really need to do is an official release of the library 
> | sources that match the gcc sources
> 
> Agreed.

Easy enough:

-rw-rw-r--    1 pme      714743 Jun 26 14:20 libstdc++-3.0.tar.bz2
-rw-rw-r--    1 pme      904281 Jun 26 14:20 libstdc++-3.0.tar.gz

To be certain that they were 3.0 sources, I grabbed a copy of the 3.0
tarball from an ftp mirror, renamed the library subdirectory, and tarred
it up.  Okay to put up on the ftp site, or is there anything that should
be done first?


Phil

-- 
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
                                     - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC


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