This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] More fixes for update_web_docs_svn for jit docs (PR jit/64257)
- From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: jit at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:17:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] More fixes for update_web_docs_svn for jit docs (PR jit/64257)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1502021849490 dot 2504 at tuna dot site> <1423074736-47636-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1502041946290 dot 2504 at tuna dot site> <1423077032 dot 29180 dot 125 dot camel at surprise> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1502042219450 dot 2504 at tuna dot site> <1423088766 dot 29180 dot 129 dot camel at surprise>
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 17:26 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 22:21 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2015-02-04 14:10, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Gerald: Please can you do the "svn up" on the relevant machine again,
> > > so that it gets the updated "update_web_docs_svn"?
> >
> > That was my plan, yes. :-) I just did that and manually ran
> > the script, and it seems to work.
>
> Thank you!
>
> The jit docs are now visible on the GCC website at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/jit/
and fwiw:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gccadmin/2015-q1/msg00080.html
shows that the cronjob then successfully rebuilt them again from svn.
> (sadly the "Show Source" link on each page is a 404; iirc the "pyramid"
> theme didn't show these links so I didn't bother copying up the files;
> I'll look at fixing that).
>
> > Still, do you think you can add a bit of error handling such
> > that an issue like the one we had (cf.
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gccadmin/2015-q1/msg00077.html ) does
> > not kill the entire script? A bit of resilience would be good.
>
> Something like the attached? (completely untested, sorry)
>