On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>> Daniel Berlin writes:
>>
>>> Understood, but I wonder how other projects deal with this. I cannot
>>> possibly be the on
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> Daniel Berlin writes:
>
>> Understood, but I wonder how other projects deal with this. I cannot
>> possibly be the only one in the world who wants to submit structured bug
>> repor
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
> Understood, but I wonder how other projects deal with this. I cannot
> possibly be the only one in the world who wants to submit structured bug
> reports by mail.
No, you are not the only one. Unless my memory is
fai
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
>
>> > I don't blame you at all, but find it highly
>> > unfortunate to be forced to use a browser for initial submission instead of
>> > being able to use a proper mailer/editor.
>> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I si
Daniel Berlin writes:
> > No wonder: it didn't work for quite some time (reports didn't make it
> > through), and despite several request from me you couldn't make time to
> > find out what was going on.
>
> This is true, I don't have time to maintain an incoming email script
> used solely by you
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> [...]
>> > If we want to deprecate gccbug in 4.4 and remove it in 4.5 (and so not
>> > need 4.5.1 or subseq
Daniel Berlin writes:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
[...]
> > If we want to deprecate gccbug in 4.4 and remove it in 4.5 (and so not
> > need 4.5.1 or subsequent versions in this script), there is still time to
> > do so
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:48:19AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >> Technically Stage 4 is the same as release branch status (just without
> >> branching
> >> before). But indeed, we should update develop.html - does this need to go
> >> via
> >> the SC?
> >
> > We shou
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
> >
> > I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
> > done apar
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
>
> I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
> done apart from this:
>
>> 13. Asking Danny Berlin to adjust PRs.
>
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:20:35AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> > >> I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
> > >> snapshot to the TP is not necessary afte
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
done apart from this:
> 13. Asking Danny Berlin to adjust PRs.
Daniel, could you change "4.4" to "4.4/4.5" in the summaries of all o
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Technically Stage 4 is the same as release branch status (just without
>> branching
>> before). But indeed, we should update develop.html - does this need to go
>> via
>> the SC?
>
> We should probably drop current Stage 2 and just rename Stage 3 to Stage 2
> and Stage
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:20:35AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
> >> snapshot to the TP is not necessary after creating a release branch if one
> >> was submitted du
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
>> snapshot to the TP is not necessary after creating a release branch if one
>> was submitted during stage 3 or 4 (now we have a long stabilisation period
>> on trunk and
> I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
> snapshot to the TP is not necessary after creating a release branch if one
> was submitted during stage 3 or 4 (now we have a long stabilisation period
> on trunk and a comparatively short one on the branch before release,
>
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 8. Regenerating .pot files.
I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
snapshot to the TP is not necessary after creating a release branch if one
was submitted during stage 3 or 4 (now we have a long stabilisation period
on
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> If we want to deprecate gccbug in 4.4 and remove it in 4.5 (and so not
>> need 4.5.1 or subsequent versions in this script), there is still time to
>> do so (though not to get it in the first deprecated-features-removal patch
>> for 4.5 - that has already been approved for
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> 12. Updating the email parsing script. AFAICT, this hasn't been done in
>> a while, so I wasn't sure if it was considered obsolete.
>
> I have done this. I'll deal with the snapshot and .pot
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 12. Updating the email parsing script. AFAICT, this hasn't been done in
> a while, so I wasn't sure if it was considered obsolete.
I have done this. I'll deal with the snapshot and .pot files later.
I'll close 4.2 branch at some point after the PR s
[Joseph, Danny, see below for request.]
At long last, I have created the GCC 4.4 release branch.
We are now in Stage 1 on the mainline. Please go ahead and begin
checking in approved patches. Please try to coordinate so that we do
not have multiple overlapping radical changes. Please announce
21 matches
Mail list logo