Stopping daily bump of version.c on old/closed branches

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:08:38AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 03:26  AM, Phil Edwards wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 03:21:39AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >>
> >>On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 02:41  AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As I announced earlier, the branch gcc-3_2-branch will be closed
> >>>after GCC-3.2.3 is realesed.  By that I really mean that we don't 
> >>>have
> >>>anything like GCC-3.2.4 floating around.  My inclination is to have
> >>>the conjob that currently bumps gcc/version.c not touch 
> >>>gcc-3_2-branch.
> >>>
> >>What is this script written in?
> >
> >top level, maintainer-scripts/update_version
> >
> >It's just sh, most of them are.  I wouldn't want to see them rewritten
> >in perl, to be honest.  And most of them that do use sh are pretty
> >straightforward.
> 
> I wasn't proposing rewriting, it's just i didn't want to tamper with 
> scripts written in a language
> i'm not familiar with the nuances of.
> So I asked what they were written in, since I didn't want to make a 
> suggestion
> without being able to at least conditionally volunteer to implement it.
> :)
> 
> In this case, it looks like we would be changing
>  BRANCHES=`$CVS status -v gcc/ChangeLog \
>               | awk '{print $1;}' \
>               | egrep 'gcc-[0-9]+_[0-9]+-branch$'`
> 
> to something like
>  BRANCHES=`cat gcc/active-branches` \
>               | awk '{print $1;}'
> 
> (or whatever)
> if we were to use a list of active branches.

Can I suggest a list of inactive branches instead?  It's not as
natural, but it seems that by default we always want the version bumped
until the branch is explicitly retired; this could be part of retiring
it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer