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: PATCH: other/20731: contrib/gcc_update hard code -r gcc-3_4-branch


On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:38:13PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr  2, 2005, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> 
> > This patch will make sure cvs update picks up the branch from CVS/Tag.
> 
> Which will probably defeat the whole point of the original patch,
> which IIRC was to get things to work even with a CVS that didn't
> support per-directory stick tags.  There's no other reason to pass the

If it is the only reason, why don't we require a minimum cvs version?

> branch name explicitly otherwise AFAIK, and it's actually harmful as
> Richard Earnshaw pointed out.  Personally, I'd much rather have the
> original patch reverted, and get whoever uses such an ancient version
> of cvs to upgrade or pass the -r option explicitly.

That will work for me.


H.J.


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