Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-29 Thread Joe Buck
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote: > > Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no > > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP. On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > The snapshots know nothing of whether there were any changes on the b

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-29 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > > >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-28 Thread Joe Buck
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > A third alternative is to issue a sna

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-28 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval >> > is chosen) iff there's been a checki

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-28 Thread Joe Buck
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval > > is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch. > > I thought that's how it worked already. No, a new 4

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-28 Thread Mark Mitchell
Gerald Pfeifer wrote: At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four of these. I agree that turning off the 4.1 snapshots makes sense. If you're sufficiently motivated to do the automatic snapshot-o

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-27 Thread NightStrike
On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval > is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch. I thought that's how it worked already.

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-27 Thread Joe Buck
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots" > > is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will > > be happy to roll a new snapshot upon request in case someone (like

Re: GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-27 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) > and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four > of these. > > A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any

GCC 4.1 snapshots

2008-05-27 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four of these. A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any further GCC 4.1.x releases and the speed of changes on that branch has noticably slo