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 -rgcc-3_4-branch
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:14, David O'Brien wrote:
> 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.
> > -$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 ${1+"$@"}
Hmm, this is just plain wrong. -r before 'update' doesn't do the same
as -r after 'update'. See the manual.
> 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)
If I sticky-set a file to a particular version, I don't want some other
tool to try and tell me I'm wrong.
I don't mind it warning me that I have such files, but quietly changing
them behind my back is unacceptable.
Don't forget that not all branches are release branches.
R.