This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Check-In Requirements
In article <200006020847.KAA01082@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>,
"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> I believe it is called gcc-testresults instead, isn't it?
Yes, I misnamed the list in my last message: replace gcc-testsuite
with gcc-testresults.
> I would not want to execute an additional step, or I need to produce
> a printed checklist to make sure I won't forget anything :-(
I really didn't mean to propose anything that would cause you to
produce less. ;-) If that would be the consequence of my proposal,
then it should be killed ASAP.
In article <20000602082254V.mitchell@codesourcery.com>,
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> This is not a rhetorical question: should we only be sending results
> to gcc-testsuite generated from pristine (w.r.t. the mainline and/or
> tagged releases) source trees?
> That's a good question. It's my opinion that the answer to that
> question is yes, i.e., that we should only send in results from
> pristine sources.
OK, then I am one that has been misusing that list. I am sorry and
from now on, I will only post reports from pristine source trees.
With CVS's ability to easily maintain multiple working trees, I can
just always keep one unpatched source tree. I will only post reports
from builds against that tree.