Re: PATCH: Bump version on mainline

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Zack Weinberg wrote:

> > However, I would also like to add something like --with-distributor
> > and --with-support-url.   So that, for example, we could build GCC
> > 3.4.2 without modifying the sources at all, but with appropriate
> > configuration options, and get:
> >
> >   3.4.2 (CodeSourcery 2005Q1A)
> >
> > That's a superset of your improvement, though.
>
>
> I can see that being nice, but I'd vote for doing it as a subsequent
> improvement.

Sure.

> There are problems with that: we want a cvs checkout at the release
> tag to duplicate what's in the tarball (except for generated files
> that are never kept in CVS)

I had anticipated this objection, and should have mentioned it.  I don't 
really see this as a very big deal, since, as you say, you can't really 
get exactly the same bits with "cvs export" as it is.  And, why would 
you want to?  Just grab the release tarball.

The key invariant to me is that the release tarball can be regenerated 
easily, and that's still true: running the release script using the tag 
created when it was previously run should produce an equivalent tarball.

> and it doesn't get rid of the
> "(prerelease)".  But I'll see if I ca think of something that does
> what you want.

Yes, I'd like to see that tag handled in a similar fashion.

Basically, what I'm after is something that would make bumping the 
version number for the branch a "change one file" process, and make it 
trivial for the release script to trivially touch/remove a couple of 
files before actually making the tarball.  (Right now, I find the 
release and branch checklists surprisingly long, and while some of the 
steps could be automated, it would be even better just to eliminate them.)

> > Would you like to implement your suggestion?  I can't imagine anyone
> > objecting to your idea, though my configure options might be a
> > little more controversial.
>
> If you don't mind my doing it on company time, sure, I'll squeeze that
> in sometime this week.

Yes, that's fine.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304