This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Bump version on mainline
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I don't see that having the sources that are actually tagged match the tarball
> with respect to version.c is terribly important if they don't match
> everywhere. And, there may even be value in having them *not* match; it
> reduces the chance that people will have versions of GCC that report
> themselves as being the official release unless they built from the release
> tarball.
I think a build from the CVS tag for the release by someone with the right
tools should be just as official as one from the release tarball.
We don't currently have a three-way distinction
development/prerelease/release in the manuals, just a two-way
DEVELOPMENT/non-DEVELOPMENT one in gcc-common.texi (used e.g. by
gfortran.texi). But a three-way distinction, marking all the manuals
appropriately, would make sense (and some of these proposals might make it
easier by cleanly separating the different bits of version information);
and equally it is natural for update_web_docs always to get sources by a
single method, CVS, whether generating documentation for mainline or for a
release, and the online docs for releases should indeed declare themselves
to be for a release if those in the actual releases do.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)