This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: other/20731: contrib/gcc_update hard code -r gcc-3_4-branch
- From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:14:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: other/20731: contrib/gcc_update hard code -r gcc-3_4-branch
- Organization: The NUXI BSD Group
- References: <20050402164411.GA24069@lucon.org> <Pine.BSF.4.62.0504032317050.84659@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
- Reply-to: obrien at FreeBSD dot org
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, H. J. Lu wrote:
> This patch will make sure cvs update picks up the branch from CVS/Tag.
> I tested it on mainline, gcc 3.4 and gcc 3.4 rhl.
>
> H.J.
> ----
> 2005-04-02 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
> PR other/20731
> * gcc_update: Check CVS/Tag for branch.
>
> --- contrib/gcc_update.br 2005-03-28 11:55:25.000000000 -0800
> +++ contrib/gcc_update 2005-04-02 08:36:41.163020307 -0800
> @@ -249,7 +249,12 @@ fi
>
> chat "Updating CVS tree"
>
> -$GCC_CVS -q ${silent+-Q} update ${1+"$@"}
> +if [ -f CVS/Tag ]; then
> +GCC_BRANCH="-r `sed -e 's/^T//' CVS/Tag`"
> +else
> +GCC_BRANCH=
> +fi
> +$GCC_CVS -q ${silent+-Q} $GCC_BRANCH update ${1+"$@"}
> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> (touch_files_reexec)
> echo "CVS update of full tree failed." >&2
I am rather against this patch.
On mainline one may easily explicitly set a few files revisions to get
past bugs/issues in a file until fixed later. When they update their
sources I think it would be a big suprise to have that sticky tag undone.
On the branch, I feel that if one uses contrib/gcc_update they want the
branch and nothing else. If a sticky tag accidently got set, it was an
accident. (note that -D (date) and -r (branch) aren't really usable
together)
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)