This is the mail archive of the 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: PATCH: Bump version on mainline

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> I don't see that having the sources that are actually tagged match the tarball
> with respect to version.c is terribly important if they don't match
> everywhere.  And, there may even be value in having them *not* match; it
> reduces the chance that people will have versions of GCC that report
> themselves as being the official release unless they built from the release
> tarball.

I think a build from the CVS tag for the release by someone with the right 
tools should be just as official as one from the release tarball.

We don't currently have a three-way distinction 
development/prerelease/release in the manuals, just a two-way 
DEVELOPMENT/non-DEVELOPMENT one in gcc-common.texi (used e.g. by 
gfortran.texi).  But a three-way distinction, marking all the manuals 
appropriately, would make sense (and some of these proposals might make it 
easier by cleanly separating the different bits of version information); 
and equally it is natural for update_web_docs always to get sources by a 
single method, CVS, whether generating documentation for mainline or for a 
release, and the online docs for releases should indeed declare themselves 
to be for a release if those in the actual releases do.

Joseph S. Myers      (personal mail) (CodeSourcery mail) (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

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