This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.3.5 Status Report (2010-05-22)
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Dongsheng Song <dongsheng dot song at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:51:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.3.5 Status Report (2010-05-22)
- References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1005222256320.1429@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LSU.1.99.1005232108210.26362@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <AANLkTikwR2VZuowxH4ijoHghs2qIdaTiehYzu9UF2_R1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=N-x87fDAD3uzR6Ady--k7Gtj48TgxwukRBA45@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1101302252110.14698@gerinyyl.fvgr> <AANLkTinBdPUZ2F88Eo2dFjC_kRXycUrmWni0t__KwPhX@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
<dongsheng.song@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for
> branches):
Or simply put Last-Changed-Date into DATESTAMP, not the
current date.
Richard.
> Index: update_version_svn
> ===================================================================
> --- update_version_svn? (revision 169428)
> +++ update_version_svn? (working copy)
> @@ -42,6 +42,12 @@
> ???? SVNROOT2=${SVNROOT}/branches/${BRANCH}
> ?? fi
>
> +? LAST_COMMITER=`${SVN} log -q -l 1 ${SVNROOT2} | awk '{if (NR==2) {print
> $3; exit}}'`
> +? if test "${LAST_COMMITER}" = "gccadmin"; then
> +??? echo "The last commiter is gccadmin, bump DATASTAMP skipped."
> +??? continue
> +? fi
> +
> ?? for i in $datestamp_FILES; do
> ???? ${SVN} -q co -N ${SVNROOT2}/`dirname $i` `basename $i`
> ?? done
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 06:23, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
>> > Just for curiousness, why we bump the DATESTAMP when the last commit
>> > is DATESTAMP changes on the branch ?
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, that's a bug (or a missing feature). ?The
>> script in question is maintainer-scripts/update_version_svn in the GCC
>> source repository. ?I already made some simplifications today and am
>> planning to do a bit more tonight. ?Are you interested in improving
>> the script to address this issue?
>>
>> Gerald
>
>