This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 4.0.2 Released


Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> The key question is whether to do an immediate 4.0.3 to catch up to what
> we intended.  (That's not entirely trivial, in that things have now been
> checked in on the 4.0 branch, so we would have to temporarily back out
> some patches, or apply tags very carefully.)  Or, we could do a 4.0.3
> based on current bits.
> 
> My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
> milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on.  The Solaris problem
> is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
> a crisis meriting another release cycle.  The C++ change fixed a
> regression relative to 3.4.x, but not 4.0.x.  Andreas' change is only
> known to affect m68k.
> 
> I'd appreciate feedback.  (I don't promise to be bound by the majority
> view, though.)

I think it's OK to let it go.  It doesn't seem like a crisis to me.
Chalk it up to experience.

> I'd also appreciate suggestions for making the release script more
> robust in this situation; clearly, depending on cvs rtag to fail is
> clearly not sufficiently reliable.

One obvious idea would be to first see if the tag exists, and to fail
if it does.  You can see if it exists by doing a checkout using that
tag.  If the tag does not exist, the checkout will fail.  Note that
this is a slow process, as CVS pokes around trying to find the tag,
but presumably the script takes a while to run anyhow.

I guess this will have to be rewritten to use SVN soon anyhow.

Ian


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